Do Companies Have a Duty?

Social Media Responsibility VISUAL

Do Companies Have a Duty?

Social media exerts an incredibly powerful influence on us. But who is taking responsibility for the behaviour on social media? 

 

In 2021, the number of social media users exceeded the 4.5 billion mark. This means that 57.6 percent of the entire world population is active on social media. In the past year, around 409 million additional users joined, which corresponds to around 13 new users per second. After just a few “likes”, Facebook can identify users’ political and sexual attitudes. All this shows that social media has become a permanent feature of our society and has an incredible impact on people across the world.

 

As early as 1953, the term “Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR) was being used to describe the “social contract” between companies and society: consumers expect companies to act responsibly as well as ethically and morally. Almost 70 years later, what’s the situation today? Although social media has become indispensable, neither individual users nor companies seem to be aware of the responsibility that goes with their use of social media or want to deal with it. At the same time, the platforms themselves are coming under increasing criticism. So a question for our time is: who is taking responsibility for the behaviour on social media? Should companies be held equally accountable? Here are some arguments for and against:

 

 

Yes! Companies have an obligation.

 

    1. Companies have the opportunity to influence platforms

 

The #StopHateforProfit campaign in 2020 showed that companies have the opportunity to take a strong, clear stance and accept responsibility for social media. Responsibility means having authority over someone or something and at the same time accepting an obligation. The platforms live from their advertising revenue. Money that companies invest in social media and which enables companies to exercise their authority over platforms. They should use this authority to avoid a situation in which responsibility and thus also the decision-making power lying with a single entity – the platform.

 

    2. Companies share responsibility for users’ health and safety

 

In Germany, the need for protection is enshrined in law: companies are prohibited from exploiting consumers’ age, business inexperience, gullibility or fear. This means that children and young people are also taboo. But many companies want to use social media to reach precisely this very young target group, which is also reflected in the increased use of of advertising on TikTok. Even if the use of such platforms is officially only permitted to users over 13, lots of younger users can be seen having fun on the platforms. 24 per cent of 10- to 11-year-olds are on TikTok, 44 per cent of 12- to 13-year-olds are on Instagram, and among 14- to 15-year-olds 70 per cent are already using Instagram. Exactly in the phase of life in which consumer behaviour is shaped, a materialistic lifestyle is exemplified to young people via influencer channels. This is to the benefit of companies’ profits, because after all, half of 14- to 19-year-olds have already ordered something online due to influencer promotions. This is precisely why companies have a duty to make moral decisions rather than purely profit-oriented ones.

 

Equally, various studies show a connection between social media use and the increase in symptoms of depression. Social media platforms have the potential to create addictions – “fear of missing out” (FOMO) combined with the thrill of not knowing how many people have reacted to one’s own post, who they are and how they have reacted. Companies can be expected to be aware of the dark side of social media and to show responsibility accordingly.

 

    3. Companies can reduce hate speech through the active management of online communities

 

Fake news, hate speech, bullying, trolling – there are numerous terms for the dark side of social media communications. The real danger is that social media is an opinion-forming medium. Users say that reactions and comments under posts help them understand topics better and that they form or change their opinions based on this. Through active community management and their own fact-checking of comments in their feed, companies can contribute to fewer uncorrected, false statements circulating on social media, and thus also actively take responsibility against radicalization.

 

    4. Companies can benefit from taking a credible stance

 

Social media is a battleground of political and social issues. Users demand backbone, attitude and credibility from companies. But in order to do this, companies have to come across as authentic on social media, where opportunism and purpose-washing can quickly be exposed and turn into their opposite. A transparent, lived stance enables companies to differentiate themselves from competitors and become more popular among users.

 

 

No! Companies primarily have an economic interest and social media is an advertising platform.

 

    1. From the start, product responsibility lies with the platform

 

In the case of classic products, product liability and therefore responsibility lies between the manufacturer and the customer. In the case of online products it is between the platform and its users. The platforms provide the framework that is used and populated by users, so companies should not be held accountable in this respect.

 

    2. The correct and healthy use of social media is a question of media literacy

 

Media literacy means that people can use media confidently for their own needs and are also able to critically evaluate the content. This makes media literacy the solution to the dilemma of social media responsibility. Responsibility lies with the recipient of the message, not the sender. So those who are responsible for instilling media literacy must be made responsible – parents in the case of their children, or the education system too.

 

    3. Social media is a marketing platform

 

Shareholders, employees, public authorities, etc. expect companies to operate commercially in order to secure jobs, investments and profits. This includes marketing to increase sales alongside social media sites, which are ultimately marketing platforms. Product advertising and unrealistic ideals of beauty existed well before the invention of social media, for example in magazines and on TV. On social media, while advertisements and influencer cooperations are flagged as such, and senders can be identified quickly, in classic product placements it is even more difficult for users to recognize that this is indeed advertising. For this reason, companies using social media shouldn’t have to bear more responsibility than users of any other media channels.

 

    4. Companies should not restrict freedom of expression

 

The term “social media” already shows that these are shared forms of media in society. “Social” refers to the fact that a variety of different people live together in an organized way. This “organized way” is determined by the terms and conditions of the individual social media platforms. They regulate which guidelines users have to follow and what limits there are to freedom of expression on social media. For this reason, it is not the responsibility of companies to delete users’ posts at their own discretion if they do not violate these terms and conditions.

 

    5. It is the users’ responsibility to adapt the available settings and features themselves

 

Social media is user-centric and therefore gives users the opportunity of designing the network in exactly the way that is most expedient for them. “X-out” features mean that advertisements can be limited, privacy can be protected using data protection settings, screen time can be controlled with notifications settings, and hate speech and fake news can be reduced by reporting posts. This is only a small selection of the possibilities that users have to take responsibility for social media and their own healthy use of it. It is the users’ responsibility to make use of these features. After all, users’ requirements are highly diverse: there are users who exploit the extreme personalization of advertisements for their own benefit in order to save time on Internet searches and to find out about cheap offers; and then there are those who are on social media to keep in touch with friends and family and who are not interested in commercial content. Because the requirements are so individual, it is not the responsibility of companies to meet all these requirements.

 

This comparison shows that responsibility must be shared. The platforms cannot do it without the users, the users cannot do it without companies standing up for them, and companies cannot do it without platforms and users who encourage them to do so and create the conditions. This means that the responsibility does not lie with one individual, but is shared, and everyone must be aware of the contribution they can and should make.

 

 

What companies can do to demonstrate more social media responsibility in everyday life:

 

1.       Companies can focus on active community management to check not only their own brand, but also the correctness of the statements under their posts. Bearing in mind freedom of expression, deleting posts is not always necessary, but there is nothing to stop the author posting an answer with a correction. The brand can invoke its “house rules” to insist that its own values are respected.

 

2.       Before publishing their own content, companies can go the extra mile and do a compliance check to ensure that published facts are correct.

 

3.       When communicating with young target groups, companies can avoid using advertisements in order to protect these groups. When addressing young target groups, the focus should be on diversity and educational content and not just on pure consumerism and materialistic lifestyles.

 

4.       Influencer cooperations can be re-examined. Instead of high-reach influencers, companies can use authentic brand ambassadors.

 

5.       If companies decide to take a stance regarding social media, they should do it holistically and not just operate opportunistically responding to what society deems desirable. Guidelines can help make clear what individual values mean and how they should be reflected on social media. In doing so, care should be taken to ensure that stance and responsibility do not begin with social media, but with the product and the brand itself. “Value workshops” can help make everyone involved aware of what a company wants to stand for.

 

When it comes to taking a stance and accepting responsibility, people need an opportunity, motivation and personal justification (similar to the “fraud triangle”, which is about the pursuit of illegal or corrupt activities). An opportunity can be created, for example, by platform providers through the use of terms and conditions, features and contact points, or by companies through netiquettes. A motivation can mean being persuaded to want to take responsibility, but also the know-how and the knowledge to do so. And a personal justification confirms that the path we have chosen is the right one, even if it may involve some sacrifices at the beginning. Perhaps this article can provide a start, offering companies both the motivation and personal justification to share responsibility on social media.

Disclaimer: Not all social media are the same. International differences exist in terms of censorship, data protection, features and platforms. This report reflects a European perspective on social media.

 

Author: Alexandra Braun, Head of Strategy & Analytics Plan.Net NEO

Interested in more content?

Back to issue #6