Framing is used to influence the decisions that people make through emphasis, presentation and language. Old furniture becomes “rustic” and small spaces become “cosy”. On our weekly food shops, we react to products more favourably when they are described positively (e.g. 75% lean beef) than negatively (25% fat)[1]. Framing has been successfully utilised by marketers for decades and is a key concept in behavioural science to help shape peoples’ decisions and behaviour.
Credit: Jono Hey -sketchplanations.com
Does framing have real-world implications?
More than marketers selling us products, framing can also affect how we perceive important political issues. “A 2015 survey by Ipsos MORI asked two groups of adults about lowering the UK voting age. They found that the majority verdict flipped depending on whether people were asked if they supported ‘reducing the voting age from 18 to 16’ (37% for, 56% against) or “giving 16 and 17 olds the right to vote’ (52% for, 41% against). The first question frames the issue as one of liberalisation and potential risk (possibly implying a loss of the status quo); the second frames it as one of recognising rights.”[2].
And framing can impact whether people cooperate with or exploit others. In one experiment, players are asked to cooperate or defect in an economic game.
"Participants can earn a moderate amount of money if both opt to cooperate, but each player has the opportunity to earn more by defecting; however, joint defection leaves both players worse off than if both had cooperated. This task models a common tension in real-world exchanges between cooperation and exploitation. Yet simply changing the name of the game while keeping all other aspects identical (including monetary payoffs) had a dramatic impact on cooperation rates. Roughly 30% of participants cooperated when it was called the Wall Street Game, whereas 70% cooperated when it was called the Community Game[3].”
Rationally, the name of a game should not affect behaviour but this example shows how framing can signal expectations of conduct and behaviour that participants then strive to meet.
How do companies use frames?
Frames are regularly utilised within corporate settings. As one Institute for Business Ethics briefing notes, “‘creative accounting’ doesn’t sound as serious as ‘accounting fraud’”[4]. During a safety crisis at General Motors employees were instructed to use technical terminology instead of terms with clear moral implications “saying that a product was “above specifications” or “below specifications” rather than “safe” or “unsafe.” Such instructions make it easier for employees to construe their behavior in ways that permit unethical behavior”[5].
When it comes to setting frames, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky – the fathers of behavioural economics – found that people respond to losses more than gains. This has been demonstrated in numerous experiments since and finds that “a simple, seemingly irrational, change in framing – from positive to negative – produces better responses from consumers or service users. A promotion which stresses what users/customers are missing out on is more powerful than one emphasising the benefits to be gained”. The authors continue, “for an Amazon rainforest campaigner there is an obvious implication: stress how the loss of the forest will reduce life expectancy for native peoples, kill of species and cause global warming. Don’t focus on the possible life-saving drugs that might be developed from plants, or the outstanding beauty of the landscape”[6].
What does framing offer the responsible business field?
These examples suggest that practitioners should pay attention to language and emphasis to critically assess how framing may positively or negatively influence decisions made. Five areas emerge for particular consideration:
Identifying which frames motivate business leader’s commitments and action. The previous example and corresponding implications for the Amazon rainforest campaigners raises interesting questions for how we try to secure commitment and action from senior business leaders. Are they more motivated by losses than gains? Must they be individual losses or gains, or do corporate losses or gains hold sway? Should the ‘business case’ be framed as risk or reward? .
Influencing the behaviour of business partners. For many years practitioners have spoken about the difference between trying to shape the behaviour of business partners (e.g. suppliers) through a compliance-based frame (e.g. “comply and potentially face punishment”) versus a relationship-based frame (e.g. “we understand these issues are tricky and commit to working with you in partnership to solve them”). The framing of the relationship seems to guide various behaviours including the partner’s willingness to share bad news or challenges.
Identifying modern slavery. In a recent conversation with Neill Wilkins, a modern slavery specialist at the Institute for Human Rights and Business, at the 2018 UN Forum on Business and Human Rights, he described how the language or frame of ‘modern slavery’ is supremely helpful in attracting global attention, and securing resources and commitments from CEOs and senior leaders. But he warned against using the frame on the ground, for example with factory managers, because in those situations, forced labour and other forms of modern slavery doesn’t ‘look like’ what the term conjures of people in chains. People working under conditions akin to modern slavery look like regular workers and thus the frame doesn’t necessarily help you to identify vulnerable and exploited workers and try to address the problem at that level.
Encouraging use of complaints mechanisms.The frame for reporting and complaints mechanisms can significantly impact employee usage. The global management, engineering and development consultancy Mott MacDonald experienced a significant increase in the numbers of concerns reported when they changed the name of their line from “whistleblowing facility” (which had negative connotations) to “Speak Up Line” (more positively framed)[7]. Practitioners are often keen to solicit reports of irresponsible behaviour or human rights impacts and may want to consider whether the framing and language used internally creates an enabling environment for people to raise issues.
Inspiring a race to the top. Practitioners regularly look to what peers and competitors are doing to benchmark and inspire action internally. Reports or initiatives that highlight a lack of corporate action on business and human rights and responsible business issues, might counterproductively be framing these issues as less important or urgent by highlighting that others aren’t taking action. Shining the spotlight on best practices and examples of business action worthy of emulation may lead to greater action. Future blogs will explore this dynamic more.
At a more macro level, how we frame what we are ultimately trying to achieve will also affect behaviours and business practices. Framing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and other international standards as a compliance exercise – striving to be “UNGPs/Ruggie compliant” – risks signalling to companies that respect for human rights is a ‘tick-box’ exercise that can be discharged through the right policies, processes and management systems. These are of course important. But the UNGPs ask companies to be more dynamic and holistic in their approach. The UNGPs are fundamentally about a re-imagining of global governance and how companies relate to society by asking business to be proactive and: a) implement respect for human rights through widespread, complex organisational change; b) shift power relationships between companies and the individuals and groups they impact; and c) tackle entrenched and endemic human rights issues including by catalysing peers and governments to take action[8]. Arguably this transformational frame and focus better equips us to deal with the scale and nature of the problems we are trying to address.
[1] Francesca Gino (2013), ‘Sidetracked: Why Our Decisions Get Derailed, And How We Can Stick To The Plan’, Harvard Business Review Press, p.177
[2] Hallsworth, M., Egan, M., Rutter, J., & McCrae, J. (2018), ‘Behavioural Government: Using behavioural science to improve how governments make decisions’, The Behavioural Insights Team, p.20
[3] Epley, N., & Tannenbaum, D. (2017), ‘Treating ethics as a design problem’, Behavioral Science & Policy, 3(2), 73–84, p.78
[4] Institute for Business Ethics (2018), 'Using Behavioural Ethics to improve your ethics programme' p.5
[5] Epley, N., & Tannenbaum, D. (2017). Treating ethics as a design problem. Behavioral Science & Policy, 3(2), 73–84, p.78
[6] Bernard Ross and Omar Mahmoud (2018), ‘Change for Good: Using Behavioural Economics for a Better World’, The Management Centre, p.144
[7] Institute for Business Ethics (2018), 'Using Behavioural Ethics to improve your ethics programme' p.5
[8] Mark Hodge (2016), ‘The Transformational Nature of Respect’, The Business and Human Rights Review, Issue 4, Summer 2016, p.19