international organizations in the globalized economy

The IT-savvy protestors who rocked Cologne, Seattle, Washington DC, Prague, Quebec City and Davos before Nice, Gothenburg, Salzburg, and Genoa—the list grows—are multi-generational, multi-class, and multi-issue oriented. They are a motley crew of lobbyists, activists, pacifists, and extremists. Regardless, they share a distrust of what international organizations (or gatherings) have to say. Geopolitical, economic, and demographic forces gave birth to anti-globalization about two years ago. The phenomenon is spreading and will continue to make headlines. All the same, not a lot is being said about how to cope with it, aside from retreating to mountaintops, fortresses, or islands. For sure, little conversation can be had with hooligans who hurl Molotov cocktails when they are not looting banks, shops, and cars. But international organizations ought to anticipate and respond to the demands of protestors who conduct their activities in peace and with legitimacy. Surveys report also that protestors command a greater level of trust than international organizations: predictably, respondents think that protestors are driven by morals and ethics. All the more reason, then, to act on the perception that there is a democratic deficit. So what can they do expressly? Realigning Brands. Of course, they can raise appeal. The monetary, trade, environmental, and development organizations that the protestors target in turn have never done work on branding. They need to align vision, culture, and image. And they must for this find out where these props are out of kilter. Vision and culture. Do they practice the values they hold up? Do their visions inspire their cultures? Image and vision. Who are their stakeholders? What do they expect? Do the organizations convey their visions to them effectively? Image and culture. What images do stakeholders associate with international organizations? How do staffs and stakeholders interact? Do staffs fuss about what stakeholders think? Misalignment between vision and culture would reveal that the international organizations pursue strategic directions that staffs do not understand or support (or worse still that the visions are too grand to implement). The gap would represent a rift between rhetoric and reality. Next, misalignment between image and vision would reveal discrepancies between the image that stakeholders have of international organizations and the vision promoted by the managers of these organizations. The gap would imply disregard for stakeholders. Finally, misalignment between image and culture would signify confusion among stakeholders as to what international organizations stand for. The gap would mean that international organizations do not put into effect what they preach. Defusing Threats. International organizations can also make potent threats less harmful by providing platforms from which protestors can express their opinions. (In this way, troublemakers would be shown up for what they are.) Many opportunities to do so exist. International organizations can readily grant website access, organize newsgroups, conduct live Internet debates, link their websites to those of prominent protestors, and stage press conferences or public debates with them. Reperceiving Social Responsibility. More profoundly (and sustainably), international organizations can build up more inclusive relationships with members of civil society. How? In no particular order, the plethora of red-hot issues agitating protestors include global warming and climate change, biodiversity, genetically modified organisms, nuclear power, missile defense, disarmament, Third World debt, terms of trade, underdevelopment, corporate dishonesty, anti-capitalism, anti-Americanism, human rights, unfair labor practices, race and gender issues, health, and AIDS. To begin with, international organizations must think about these issues from the perspective of all stakeholders (not just shareholders) to take in changing expectations. Having decided to spend more time on stakeholder analysis—and that means identifying those participants who have the most direct interaction and examining their interests from their points of view—they would soon identify areas where new competencies are required. They would then need to investigate more facts, stretch internal and external networks, think in scenarios to draw out rigorous explorations of possible futures, build the new competencies required to deal with stakeholder concerns, integrate the new competencies into their operating systems, and support these initiatives with positive internal and external strategies safeguarded by independent verification mechanisms. Global issues call for international organizations. But many people—the great majority of whom are peaceful—are so angered that they travel long distances to protest outside international gatherings. A spirit of inclusion would let their voices be heard in constructive ways. After all, who wants to take over a crisis when it is too late? (July 2001) Copyright ©2002 Olivier Serrat