Drawing up scenarios for environment, policy and communication
Many companies were completely overwhelmed by the economic crisis in 2008. They wondered why they had missed the signals. Could they have seen the malaise coming and made preparations so that the consequences would have been less disastrous? Would the blow have been less harsh if they had been alert earlier? Once again, the question is whether organizations are well prepared for future developments. Is a hospital prepared for the possibilities of 3D printing of organs and diagnostics by robots? Is Rijkswaterstaat already taking self-driving cars into account? Do the banks already know what to do with blockchain?
What is scenario planning?
One of the tools for determining the issue strategy is scenario planning. To be able to estimate how issues will develop in the future, you can think of environmental scenarios: what is happening now and what could happen next? You can also see what the implications may be for the organization and how the organization can best respond to this. It provides a wide range of possibilities. This may involve major social or economic developments, but also small changes that are happening close to home. For example, it is important for a retail chain to consider the consequences if consumers only buy online. While it is also important for the same chain to know the demographic changes in the immediate area, so that they can take this into account when putting together their range.
How do you draw up an issue scenario?
There are countless models and methodologies for this issue scenario's to make. But actually a simple setup works best. Map out the most positive and most negative scenarios and also indicate what the most logical scenario is. Describe the scenarios, indicate for each scenario what the consequences are for your own organization and formulate what actions you could take if a scenario develops as described. You can also call all these possible actions the policy scenarios for an organization.
Possible strategies and tactics
To choose the right strategy for each scenario, it is important that you first make a thorough analysis of the issue. Based on this analysis, it can be decided what the organization will do with the issue in question.
An organization confronted with a relevant issue must make two choices. First decide whether she wants to acknowledge or deny the issue. And also whether she wants to do something with it actively or passively. If you compare those two choices on an x and a y axis, you get four quadrants with four possible choices for an organization.
Below we will further elaborate on the four strategies mentioned and indicate which tactics are used.
Strategy 1: Ignore issue or dive for an issue
This strategy is often chosen if an organization does not consider the issue important or does not attach value to it. The organization therefore decides not to take any action, to put the issue aside and to wait and see how the issue develops further. In the hope that ultimately the issue will not turn out to be an issue for the own organization. Experience shows that organizations often decide to do nothing for a while. There may already be many issues within and outside the organization and they may not have a new issue at the moment. Or they suspect that an issue will not continue and it is therefore better to wait in the shelter. Another possibility is that they absolutely do not want to be associated with the issue and hope that the issue will blow over. By choosing this strategy, organizations want to avoid becoming the target of the discussion. It may also be that an issue has little or no impact on the organization. The flow of refugees is an example of this. This is relevant and urgent for few companies. That's why they keep quiet.
Strategy 2: Attack Issue
Organizations that choose this strategy enter the battle. They actively stand up for their own interests, because they believe that the issue is wrongly placed on their plate. For example, in the past, some goat farmers in their area were accused of spreading Q fever because they had irresponsibly expanded their business. In 2017, people also accused chicken farmers of using fipronil and thereby posing a risk to public health. These companies felt unfairly attacked as they are also victims and take all emergency measures to protect their animals. It is understandable that they reject the attacks and launch a counter-offensive. Another example concerns a hospital that refused to pay for an automation system that did not work properly. The computer operator ordered the hospital to pay, after which the hospital launched a full counterattack.
Strategy 3: Move issue forward or backward
When an organization realizes that the issue is relevant, but does not want or cannot take any further action, it often chooses to pass on the issue. This gives the organization the opportunity to stay out of the discussion. The most common form of transfer is scaling up to a trade organization or interest group. The trade association then responds on behalf of the members. As a result, the attention of one's own organization is shifted to another – more neutral – party and one's own organization disappears from the eye of the storm. Sometimes this is a logical tactic because the issue affects all parties in the industry and it is not right that only one organization is attacked for this. Sometimes, however, it seems as if a trade organization was created specifically for this purpose. For example, the Central Food Bureau (trade organization of supermarkets) initially responded to questions about the sale of floppy chicken.
Strategy 4: Embrace the issue
With this last strategic choice, the organization takes control with an active policy regarding the issue. This means that the organization is no longer following (reacting) but steering (acting). When this strategy is aimed at building a bridge between stakeholders and opponent(s), it is also called bridging. Organizations mainly choose this when they have little power and therefore cannot independently pursue their own objectives and actions. Or when the organization assumes that entering into a dialogue will contribute positively to solving the issue. This strategy requires an open attitude towards the issue.