Belief System Analysis · Published on .
Promises meet in the same product
A discourse on price accessibility can coexist with a commitment to origin or environmental improvement. These objectives are not necessarily opposed, but their articulation requires choices. If a constraint appears, each direction may be tempted to preserve its own message. The consumer, the journalist or the employee, however, receives the whole and can perceive the contradictions.
We suggest starting from decisions that concretely modify the offer: change of supplier, recipe, packaging or range. For each, it is necessary to identify the public commitments concerned and the information to be updated. This work requires participation from purchasing, quality, operations, social responsibility and relevant functions. Communication alone cannot verify a supply chain.
Clarify what origin means
The DGCCRF explains the distinctions relating to the origin of food products. Depending on the product and the formulation, the place of manufacture and the origin of the ingredients do not mean the same thing. The exact framework must be checked for each situation. The institutional narrative should not make these distinctions more blurred than the information provided on the product. [1]
For the communications department, a review of expressions is useful: “manufactured”, “transformed”, “from” or “supplied from” involve different facts. You need to check the scope: a product, a range, a period or the entire offer. A reality documented on a selection does not allow the message to be extended to an entire group.
Put trade-offs at the decision level
An increase in the cost of a resource, unavailability or a change in volumes may lead to a commitment being re-examined. Before choosing the message, the steering committee must specify what it maintains, what it adapts and the consequences of this adaptation. Reassuring wording does not resolve a contradiction between a promise that is still displayed and a supply that has changed.
We recommend a short note linking each option to its effects: cost, availability, quality, impact and consistency with commitments. The data must come from the responsible professions. When certain consequences remain uncertain, this must be stated in the note and their verification organized. The goal is to prepare an assumable decision, not to make all options equally attractive.
Prepare an explanation for each relationship
Employees need to understand the changes that they will have to explain. Suppliers can wait for clarification on the continuity of the relationship. Consumers want usable information. The media and public actors can question the scope of the commitments. The same factual basis makes it possible to prepare appropriate responses without producing several incompatible versions.
Corporate communication must also look at what is visible outside the press release: presentation of the group, in-store displays, commercial documents and speeches by managers. If the messages cannot all be updated immediately, priorities and transition arrangements must be defined with the managers concerned. The risk does not only lie in a new phrase; it may come from an old promise that continues to circulate.
Example: a temporary change of supply
Let's imagine a fictitious company that must temporarily change the origin of an ingredient. A useful response would specify the scope concerned, the verified reasons for the change and the updated information. It would avoid presenting this adaptation as inconsequential if a public commitment focused precisely on provenance. The conditions for a possible return to the previous situation should be described with their actual status.
If the change reveals that a commitment was too broad to be kept over time, management must be able to re-examine it. A more precise formulation may be less spectacular but more sustainable. Communication then contributes to the governance of commitments, by showing the gaps between the words published and the organization's ability to respect them.
Maintain a common register of commitments
| Commitment | What to record |
|---|---|
| Price | Scope of the offer and comparison conditions |
| Origin | Product, ingredient, stage and period concerned |
| Environment | Indicator, method, limits and available evidence |
| Supply | Persons responsible and conditions of revision |
| Communication | Affected media and update schedule |
The register must be used for ordinary decisions. If it is only consulted in controversial situations, it arrives too late to prevent contradictions. A review can be triggered by a change of supplier, a new campaign or a substantial modification of the range, depending on the organization of the company.
For Belief System, consistency does not consist of eliminating tensions between price, origin and environment. It consists of making choices legible, scaling commitments to their actual scope and correcting information when conditions change. It is a shared responsibility whose communication can organize visibility.