Here, I show measurable effects on reputation, SEO, social media budgets and financial PR.
Today, Starbucks is in the news for its tax avoidance policies which have collected opprobrium in social media the press and, today, from a Parliamentarians.
Sky reported it thus:
In my G+ post, I noted
The tiny bump in Google search today is interesting. It shows search for the Starbucks tax issue of the order of 5%.
When interest in a subject is this big, it has an impact elsewhere on the organisation too.
Starbucks has a big internet presence in the UK, much more than most organisations. In search terms it sits between Pepsi and Waitrose. The work done in SEO and social media is a significant marketing investment which is being blown off course by this issue.
Indeed, semantically (using Google's Keyword Tool) , Starbucks is now associated with these semantic concepts: "tax, avoidance and green".
This semantic association affects search results.
This means that these is now a lot of work that needs to be done on the NY stock exchange.
What we see here is the fallout from a corporate governance issues.
Here then is the dilemma. Ethically, the company has to satisfy the demands of shareholders. At the same time it is under pressure to compromise with constituents online, in the press and among parliamentarians.
Is this a case of the ethical imperative being the long term interest of the shareholder? This may mean, the company does not need such agressive tax avoidance policies and can thus protect reputation. If so, where lies automated trading and a long history of tax management.
Do organisation now have to look at optimal management to ballance the many interests of so many well informed constituencies?