A lot of corporates nowadays “treasures” feedbacks from public, though they need not be customers to the corporates. They loves to lend an ear to listen to the complaints and feedbacks calling them constructive criticism. Though this may be seen as they doing their parts in the corporate social responsibilities, much of which are actually exploits of utilising the knowledge and experiences of the public to their own benefits.
Being in a fellowship and a network has some advantages to me as I get to utilise their resources of contact. Much of which I managed to get locally are corporates that often misrepresenting themselves in the context of the same by showcasing that these corporate cares but in actual fact, certain fraction in the corporates are taking in these feedbacks to their personal advantage.
I put forth herewith 3 show cases of CSR done wrong.
Years ago, during the time of previous CEO at the helm of their TM NET, initiated a CSR program called TM user group which I was honoured to be invited to participate. As with much of TM initiatives, changes came short in less than a year after formation of the User Group, CEO left TM. Continuation of the User Group ceases two years after. The story didn’t end here.
Over the last two years, TM has called for those customer who complaints to come under one roof. First attempt was on Feb 28, 2009 under the good hands of a new CEO. Much of which went out of control when the GM for Customer Service then went to present that in a month, total call registered at the call center to be around 1200++. This was blasted as I have around 10% of the calls logged by me myself for people in Sarawak. Another invited party in the Network Management services in JB at the meet was lodged in around 500-600 calls. The data is clearly fake as two person invited to the briefing took more than 50% of calls registered nationwide. Such feedbacks and many other points raised during the brief afternoon has TM set up a unit just to address the issue.
Second meet up was on the 14 May 2010. During the meeting, a new product was introduced and again, the same person who is now the Manager for HSBB product made a presentation on product Unifi which includes services agreement and the issue of Fair Usage Policy was brought up by a doctorate local communication guru, one of the party invited to the meet. On the same meeting, I raised the issue of CSR to TM. Apparently, things was not as it seems it is. Rant from people on internet came to me and I convey them to TM.
CSR failure of TM highlighted in the briefing includes matters raised by FOMCA’s president on the issue of identity verifications, The daunting rules and regulations of TM applications for PWD which requires the PWD to go to the Kedai to prove that they are truly PWD.
The most current meet was on the 17 December 2010 which I went and matters arised includes the need of Change Management during the implementation of Contention Ratio. Again, the same person who is now the Chief Strategic Officer addressed the issue. In his reply in writing, he insinuated that the feedback from customer has benefited him and his team in formulating their strategies and plans for the group. However, in further email discussion with En. Ahmad, it is cleared that En. Ahmad wants to take in continuous and valued feedback as a key in providing external checks and balances to TM’s initiatives.
Now, what is missing here is terms of references. Is TM trying to obtain professional input from qualified people that forms part of their customer base and utilise them without any term of reference?
A MNC local front.
In order to fulfil a social requirement, a MNC in Malaysia has recently opened up a job offer to “Malaysian” to apply. Due to some social requirement made in agreement with the government, they are supposed to hired a Malay in their effort to push for top qualifying resume. in the same effort, much of the info were not disclosed and rather than hiring them through the international channels such as foundry, they put it up as an job application to local job site. The agenda at hand as agreed and committed should be no problem. However, due to the lack of experiences of the local recruiters, they have post it up wrongly on the job site.
As I am linked to the international conglomerate through other channels, I came to know about the posting and the mismatch in the requirement to what the conglomerate wants. Job of this kind are usually sourced by portfolio and the requirement would require portfolio be submitted. A stroll of feedback I have initiated as I do qualify to do the job, in fact more than qualified, I put in a test by submitting my applications to the local party and when I, on the receiving end read the incoming shortlisted applications, my name was not in. Questions start shooting in from the international front whereby it was meet with answer that says these are the shortlisted of Malaysian applicants.
The hype of the whole thing is that the process of having the portfolio tabled. The group local office has no answer as to my earlier queries on why portfolio were not required. Though I did not use my power through affiliates to questions them as to why there is such a discrepancies occurred to their failure in ascertaining to their CSR by conveying the correct message though in the first place. People in their local office are at a lost as to why the question of portfolio was asked. It was clearly the needed front of such post was never be made here in Malaysia.
In one aspect, they are complying to one social requirement by neglecting the needs of on the contents of CSR at large.
A local GLC
In their pursuit to achieve the much lack of CSR in their operation history, a local GLC has recently asked in the market on hiring a person to handle CSR for their projects and the corporate at large.
Noticeably, portfolio were asked as to what one can do for the CSR context. The task was hanging on two areas of operation
1. Informing the public – Corporate Communication Context
2. Collecting feedbacks from the public – the CSR factor..
Speaking to the top management of the company, I was asked to review what that is needed for CSR and immediately I have sighted the lack of CSR in total and not limited to the two points mentioned above. Much of my feedbacks has shown to their top management of their lack in other areas and including the two major areas above. The lack in supplement to their corporate communications have been made known recently. However the commitment towards the CSR is as per context of engagement that they are focusing rather than the context of pre-engagement towards the CSR that they are lacking. Being big, the GLC could not make the context clear enough and public outcry over the years of neglect started to chase on. My latest understanding on their needs is now to get one person in for CSR and they have fixed their mind on a senior person who manages CSR from the context of social contributions and fund management rather than addressing the lack at hand.
In all, my experiences on ascertaining feedbacks is that local corporates does not see the needs to reciprocate on the feedbacks they have collected and some even think that the feedback is given to them at the want and not at their client’s need! Moderation of the CSR on context of reciprocal is very much lacking in Malaysia as compared to other corporates overseas which I have dealings with before. Most of the MNC will pay for the customer’s feedback based on an engagement basis with terms of references offered to their customer. Clearly this is lacking here in Malaysia and entities here should understand that they own lacking as identified by public or their clients are expose that could bring the image of the company down.