IoDSA: Boards must consider social media as key reputational risk
Friday, 18 September 2020
(4 Comments)
A recent tweet made by a director of Cricket South Africa relating to a
cancelled sponsorship highlights an issue for South African boards: the risk
represented by social media. Social media have become a key communications
channel, but they pose particular risks for organisations and especially their
directors, says Parmi Natesan, CEO, Institute of Directors in South Africa
(IoDSA).
“The bottom line is that directors have to accept that once they take up a
board position, they will be seen as representing the organisation in the world
of social media. The social media world has its own rules and culture, and
there’s no distinction between public/professional and private roles,” she says.
“Directors’ duties to act in the best interests of the organisation, with due
care, skill and diligence are paramount, and it should never be forgotten that
they can be held personally liable for not fulfilling these duties.”
Those using social media need to take the time to gain the necessary skills
to communicate in an environment in which context is completely absent.
Observations that might be unexceptionable in the real world can be perceived
quite differently in the online world—and perception is everything in the
virtual world. Board members cannot afford not to be proficient in social media
themselves and must give careful thought to their role in the organisation more
generally.
Because mishaps can cause grave reputational damage in the blink of an eye,
social media should be considered in the risk management process with a
corresponding policy to manage them, just as is the case with traditional
media, Ms Natesan argues. Social media policy and official activity is all too
often relegated to the marketing department, and seen as the preserve of
younger, more junior staff members. At the very least, the board must ensure
that a social media policy is in place and has been approved by the board and
that all staff members and directors understand what it means for them.
A key challenge is that social media often requires swift action, so
policies must be carefully crafted to provide a framework within which
everybody associated with the organisation can work, with provision made for
the rapid vetting of potentially damaging tweets. Ms Natesan recommends that
directors should restrict their social media comments to business and financial
matters of a general nature and that if they feel there is a specific issue
that needs addressing, they should take it to the social and ethics committee,
the board or the official spokesperson.
“Directors need to be careful that they do not break the bonds of
collegiality and confidentiality that are fundamental to an effective board by
speaking out on a controversial issue unilaterally,” she says.
Many social media policies also fail to provide any framework in terms of
which transgressors will be disciplined. It is therefore recommended that
social media policies are linked to the IT use policy and the disciplinary
code.
|