In Search of Lost Trust

A complete absence of trust would prevent one even getting up in the morning --Niklas Luhmann Yes, it's that important. Trust is the foundation of our security and contentment. We need trust to feel comfortable about who we work with, who we live with, what we purchase, whose advice we listen to, and who we vote for.

The value of trust in professional life can scarcely be over-estimated: it can give a business loyal customers and employees, sympathetic legislators and investors; politicians a continuing license to govern us; journalists the chance to influence us; charities the opportunity to raise money from us and so on. In short, it is a keystone of success.

Yet we are told we live in an age of diminished, if not vanished, trust. Newspaper headlines reinforce that conventional wisdom: politicians, business leaders, the Royal Family, a host of professions and institutions are said to have lost trust, or are shown desperately trying to rebuild it--usually accompanied by smiling PR advisers.

Let's explore the evidence for a decline in trust and - perhaps more importantly--look at who can still inspire trust, why and how.

A final word of preface, though, on the nature of trust. Trust is not blind faith; we may give irrational loyalty to a football team, but in most cases, there's a strong element of experience and/or conscious impression in our judgment. Trust may be conferred based on experience, but its essence is that there are no guarantees. The trusted person or organization may not behave the way we want them to--but we judge that they will. Trust is 'a bet on the future contingent action of others.' We'll revisit this later.

There is certainly polling evidence for a decline in trust - but not for a universal decline, and some of the exceptions are surprising and instructive.

On the negative side, it's clear that things have changed since a television interviewer asked the then Prime Minister Harold Macmillan 'if he has anything else to say to the nation'. Or indeed, since 1984 when the public said they would trust advice from the Chairman of British Telecom as to whether they should invest in his company.

The pessimists can also point to a range of other survey findings. Between 1959 and 1997, the proportion agreeing "most people can be trusted" fell from almost 60% to just over 30%. In 2003, almost half of British adults said they trusted others less than five years before; just 8% said their trust had increased.

Trust in the truthfulness of various groups has fallen in Britain over the past twenty years, notably the clergy:

The public's lack of faith in politicians is highlighted in reaction to the Hutton Report on the circumstances leading to the death of Dr Kelly. The eminence of the judge did not stop 48% still believing that The Prime Minister lied about his role in Dr Kelly's exposure (according to ICM for The Guardian) and 56% believing that 'Lord Hutton as a member of the establishment was too ready to sympathize with the Government' (YouGov for The Telegraph). Perhaps more worrying, the result is a skeptical - if not downright cynical - attitude to future reports. At time of writing, an NOP/Independent poll showed six of ten of the public believing that the newly announced Butler Inquiry into pre-Iraq War intelligence will be 'a whitewash for the Government.'

As the chart above illustrated, institutions and professions inspire varying levels of trust among the public. That variation in itself might be evidence against the 'no one trusts anyone any more' theory. In fact, groups such as doctors and teachers continue to be highly trusted:

Moreover, some of these groups are more trusted than twenty years ago. Despite Harold Shipman and other high-profile examples of malpractice, the public has clearly decided these are the exceptions that prove the rule; trust in doctors has increased over the past two decades. While opinion is more divided in absolute terms, trust in the integrity of civil servants and trade union officials is also higher than in the early 1980s when they were demonized by the government of the day:

Where does this leave business? We know its general credibility leaves a lot to be desired. In a MORI survey for the Financial Times in June 2003, 80% of the public said top company directors can't be trusted to tell the truth. In fact, trust in the truthfulness of business leaders show almost no change over the past twenty years; the stream of 'fat cat' stories, while no doubt reinforcing negative perceptions, has at least not made the situation any worse. The general distrust of business does not carry over to all major companies. Like the professions, different companies attract different levels of trust:

Interestingly, British American Tobacco is now committed to a path of trying to build trust through leadership in corporate social responsibility--a brave path, and the chart highlights the challenge it has taken on. There is encouragement to be taken, and lessons to be learned, from the differentiation between companies--and from other case studies. In a nutshell, we can identify three keys to establishing and building trust: alignment, delivery, and honesty.

Companies--like political parties--will create trust only if they show their attention is aligned with the interests and concerns of their stakeholders. Every company is seen as having strengths and weaknesses; what counts is whether the perceived strengths are in areas that the stakeholder cares about. The point is illustrated by two charts showing a major company's reputation among two distinct stakeholder groups. In the first, its strengths are closely aligned with the audience's priorities--a recipe for high regard and trust. In the second, the alignment is negative--a recipe for poor regard and distrust:

One of the most dramatic ways an organization can improve stakeholders' disposition towards it is to improve the alignment--to demonstrate interest in the issues closest to their hearts. An illustration is the sharp improvement in overall favorability among Labour MPs gained by an organization switching the emphasis of its communications to corporate social responsibility:

While there is a powerful case for talking about corporate citizenship and business as a force for good, that should not distract from delivery--behavior that meets or exceeds expectations. This starts with the organization's basic reason for being: the ways it makes its customers' lives easier and better. A company such as Tesco is well regarded as a corporate citizen, but the first point of its consumer trust is the quality and value of what it sells.

In the mid-1990s, Marks & Spencer was concerned about the potential negative impact on customer opinion when it announced profits topping 1631 billion. The concern was unfounded: unlike the privatized utilities, M&S was seen to be making its profits on the back of giving its customers outstanding service, and was not resented for it.

Sensible companies do not lose sight of the critical importance of delivery. While this begins with products and services, the world has become more complex and it increasingly means delivery against a range of expectations extending into the realms of corporate responsibility. Communication may be necessary to bring delivery to stakeholders' attention - especially when it is in the sphere of corporate citizenship -and stakeholders express increasing hunger for such communication. However, the underlying behavior will determine trust. As Niall FitzGerald of Unilever put it: "Trust can't be built in a one-off spate of advertising. It is built over the long term, on the basis not of communication but of action."

Mark Ware, Group Vice President of Corporate Communications at BP, expresses a similar sentiment: "Reputation is founded on the Group's record, the judgment or experience of third parties and the views they form about our activities and the actions of our employees. Our reputation is not the result of what we say about our aspirations. Our reputation is the result of how we all deal with real-life situations." BP and its competitor Shell are leading examples of companies who have adapted from a 'trust me' to a 'show me' world. In the wake of negative publicity over Nigeria and Brent Spar, Shell seemed to be facing a period of inexorable reputation decline. In April 1998, the company published its first special Shell report (Profits & Principles - does there have to be a choice?), marking a new approach to communication from Shell with the emphasis on accountability and dialogue. The reports have been supplemented in recent years with press and television advertising, and MORI research tracked Shell arresting and reversing the decline in its favorability. In 1997, 50% of international stakeholders were favorably disposed to the company, in 2000, 60%.

When audiences are asked what makes them trust an organization, the scarlet thread running through their answers is honesty. Especially since Enron, City investors and analysts cite honest and open communication as the single most important way for companies to create and maintain trust; Members of Parliament say the same. Asked what qualities are most important in a leader, the public puts honesty and trustworthiness top of the list (ahead of competence, for instance!). Honesty has overtaken product quality and customer care as the public's top criterion for judging companies:

How to demonstrate honesty? Again, the corporate world offers some good models. Companies are not expected to be groveling, but certainly to show some humility and balance discussion of their achievements with acknowledgements of shortcomings. That's exactly the structure of BP's 2002 Environmental and Social Review, for instance: each main section had parallel columns of 'achievements' and 'challenges'. Just as strikingly, Shell's reports include comments posted to its website, negative as well as positive.

Personal experience tells us that it's hard for someone to maintain anger and resentment towards us if we apologies. Organizations and individuals in public life find the same - but more should have the courage to try it. As the famous City figure A W Trinder, once said: "I can say I think honesty is the best policy. I've tried both."

In summary, surveys provide evidence of some declines in trust. However, the declines are selective rather than universal--and conventional wisdom is a poor guide to the reality of trends over time. It is clearly true that the public is skeptically disposed towards certain groups, including business, the media, and politicians. Just as striking, though--and arguably more instructive - is the differentiation the public draws among organizations and individuals within those categories. This tells us that trust is attainable. It is not easily or quickly won, and will not be won at all without alignment, delivery, and honesty. If it is to earn our trust, an organization (or individual) must engage with issues relevant to us, show us how it is making a difference, and acknowledge where it isn't. The public can see through organizations' short-term, manipulative communications campaigns, just as we as individuals can be seen through if we pretend to be something we aren't. So the search for trust begins with looking at ourselves and how we behave. If that deserves trust, we have every right to use the communications tools at our disposal to claim it.

To learn more about research in Canada, please contact Sandra Guiry, Associate Vice President, Public Affairs.