One of the implications of non-compliance which is frequently stressed here is the negative impact that running afoul of the law or government regulations can have on a company’s brand and reputation. While the tangible extent of this effect can often be difficult to quantify, a recent survey by Corporate Responsibility Magazine and global recruitment firm Cielo looked at the issue in terms of attractiveness and expense of talent acquisition and retention.
The telephone survey of more than a thousand people in North America this fall found that candidates are reticent to join organizations that have a bad reputation, and among those willing to join, a significant pay increase is needed as enticement. Alternatively, potential hires can be tempted by a significantly lower compensation package offered by a company with a good reputation than a bad reputation.
Income has only a slight impact on job offer decision-making the survey found, but notable discrepancies were seen between gender and age. 86% of women who responded said they wouldn’t join a company with a bad reputation, compared with 65% of men. The youngest, who tend to be the most junior workers, are the least concerned about corporate reputation, while the more experienced workers are the least likely to take a job with a reputationally challenged company.
The most harmful type of bad behavior to a company’s culture and reputation is public exposure of criminal acts, cited by 33% of respondents.
Speaking hypothetically, almost three-quarters of respondents felt it important to choose to work for a company whose CEO is involved in corporate responsibility and/or environmental issues.
“Individuals want to work for organizations with a positive reputation and ethical c-suite leadership,” said Jill Schwieters, president of Cielo Healthcare. “The research demonstrates that a bad reputation could cost real money by increasing recruiting costs as organizations perceived as unethical struggle to successfully recruit women and millennials.”