A Practical Standard for High Quality Stakeholder Engagement
Discover how businesses can unlock sustainability through strategy, ESG integration, and purpose-led action. Learn how to turn sustainable goals into long-term business success.
Brand Power: Fashion’s Unseen Asset. Why Brand Strategy and Capability are Non-Negotiable in Fashion’s Future
This article was first published on Ragtrader. Ragtrader has been providing comprehensive news, analysis and opinion on the Australian clothing, footwear and accessories sector since 1972. The Australian fashion industry, dynamic and ever-evolving, is a landscape where brand is paramount. Yet, an alarming trend continues to undermine the potential of once-iconic labels: the systematic erosion of brand DNA following changes in ownership. It’s a phenomenon that speaks volumes about a critical oversight in valuing intellectual property and, more importantly, the crucial leadership skills required to nurture it. As a brand strategist with over three decades of experience, including sixteen years in global and regional leadership roles at powerhouses like Nike and Levi’s, and having navigated the complexities of the Australian market, I’ve witnessed firsthand the devastating consequences of what I call “brand blandification.” This isn’t merely about a decline in sales; it’s a lamentable loss of unique identity that disappoints loyal fans and leaves a void in the market, ultimately leading to the economic erosion of a once-valued asset. Consider Sass & Bide. Once the undisputed darling of Australian fashion, a brand synonymous with a highly distinctive design handwriting crafted by its visionary founders, it was snapped up by Myer in 2013. What followed, however, was a masterclass in how not to manage a brand post-acquisition. The original essence, the very soul of Sass & Bide, was seemingly left undocumented, uncodified. There was no “codes and cues handbook” to capture its unique spirit, no clear mandate to preserve its distinctive aesthetic. The result? A brand that, to its original devotees, became a shadow of its former self, struggling to differentiate itself from high-street and private label offerings and, regrettably, losing its compelling edge. Whilst revenue today is reportedly just a fraction of what it was at the time of the transaction in 2013 (when the store footprint was many times larger), it is the value of the brand as an asset that is most eroded. Sass & Bide is far from an isolated incident. We’ve seen similar fates befall Marcs, Willow, and Lover – brands once celebrated for their unique brand pillars, now seemingly bereft of their original identities, reduced to brand marks applied to private label offerings. And the most lamentable stories are those of brands that, having lost their way after a change in ownership, ultimately succumbed to oblivion, such as Alannah Hill and Charlie Brown. While it’s easy to point fingers at the new owners, the reality is more nuanced. The issue isn’t simply the change of hands; it’s the profound misunderstanding and undervaluation of brand as a living, breathing asset. In my experience leading private equity assignments for premium retail businesses, a brand-led approach is crucial for maximising exit value – and a truly healthy brand should always be sale-ready. In an acquisition, the purchase price often exceeds the fair market value of the tangible assets (like buildings, equipment, inventory) and is recorded as “goodwill” on the acquirer’s balance sheet. A significant portion of this goodwill is attributable to intangible assets, and the brand (its reputation, customer loyalty, recognition, and future earning power) is a major driver of that. I’ve experienced firsthand that there are strategic acquirers who deeply understand the power of brand, and empower leadership teams to drive growth and equity through a consumer-first, brand-centric approach. The notion that private equity inherently strips value is a dated generalisation; in reality, brand mismanagement can occur under any ownership, be it trade, private equity, or otherwise. Leader businesses understand that a brand’s name alone is not enough. They powerfully capture their brand cues, embedding them in rigorous brand guidelines, and then work tirelessly to keep them alive while continuously making them relevant and compelling to new audiences. Chanel is the quintessential example. Long after Coco Chanel’s passing in 1971, her iconic design cues – the quilting, tweed, gold chains, pearls, camellias, and monogram buttons – have been meticulously carried forward. Karl Lagerfeld, and later Virginie Viard, masterfully reinterpreted these signature elements, ensuring their resonance with emerging consumer groups. As we eagerly await Matthieu Blazy’s vision for Chanel, we can be confident that whilst his artistic direction will be fresh, the brand’s core cues will be powerfully reinterpreted, not erased. Critical lessons for new owners So, what are the critical lessons for new owners keen to preserve and indeed amplify the value of these intellectual property assets, using them to fuel continued growth? The first is to acknowledge that a brand is an asset of profound value, not merely a logo or a name. It is the sum of experiences, perceptions, and emotions that resonate with consumers. This asset must be nurtured, protected, and continuously modernised without losing its essential characteristics. Zimmermann, a global success story, exemplifies this beautifully. Its private equity owners have wisely retained the services of the original founders, Nicky and Simone Zimmermann, understanding that their vision is intrinsically linked to the brand’s enduring power. Similarly, Ksubi’s resurgence, propelled by the return of a brand impresario like Pip Edwards, demonstrates the profound impact of re-igniting original brand DNA for a new global customer base. The second and perhaps most crucial learning concerns leadership capability. Far too often, particularly in the Australian market, managers appointed to lead acquired fashion businesses come from a high-street retail background, where brand is often secondary. While their operational expertise is valuable, they frequently lack the intrinsic brand management skills honed through experience with global icon brands or the rigorous brand discipline learned in branded consumer packaged goods. This skill set simply doesn’t cut it when the task is to preserve and evolve a brand’s unique identity. Another error that is often made is to leave the work of defining brand to newly appointed design leaders, yet this function also often lacks the intrinsic skill if they have not had experience in global leader brands, having come instead from high-street retail where the default approach is to take inspiration from global catwalks versus truly conceptualise a distinctive signature. This is
Hey, Retailer – Is a Unicorn Eating Your Lunch?
A new breed of retail business is emerging to take the place of those who failed to innovate for the new economy.
The Top 5 Things to Consider When Choosing a Business Consultant
At one point or another in its journey, every business will need to reach out for help to improve its performance. Whether the problem applies to the total business or to one division, once it’s clear that internal attempts at improvement are failing, it becomes necessary to search out expert advice. But the questions business owners and leaders face is which advisor to select, how to decide and what they need to know when choosing a business consultant. We’ve identified the top 5 key criteria to consider in evaluating an outside advisor for your business. The Top 5 Things to Consider When Choosing a Business Consultant 1. Independent Business Consultant, Boutique Consultancy or Enterprise Management Consultancy? There are pros and cons that go with each of these choices. With the Independent Consultant you won’t find your business flooded with inexperienced first-year university graduates doing the initial assessment work. The level of direct involvement by the principal consultant will be high. But, if the scope of the project broadens there is a risk that it could stretch beyond the competencies of an individual consultant. With a consultant with a narrow field of expertise, you may find yourself having to reach out to other consultants to bridge the gaps. With Enterprise Management Consultancies there is rarely an issue with their breadth of competency. But the engagement will undoubtedly be an expensive one and the face-time with the organisation’s top talent can be very limited. The old adage is that these groups pitch with the A-team and deliver with the B-team. Depending on the size of the business and budget available, a boutique consultancy can be a good solution. These mid-sized consultancies are generally made up of a small group of senior advisors with a variety of skills, and with a strong network of external resources to bring in should the scope broaden. 2. Experience & Credentials The first consideration is whether the consultant has competencies that stretch beyond what you already have in your organisation. Or would they be another pair of hands helping you to work on a problem? If it’s the latter, your risk not getting the value this type of investment should produce. You want to be certain that they are asking the sorts of questions that no one else is asking. And they are sharing the type of knowledge that is currently absent in your business. Your consultant should also be capable of taking a holistic business view. Will they understand complex key stakeholder relationships and expectations? Particularly for projects where stakeholders extend beyond the immediate organisation – they might include shareholders, investors, suppliers or community groups – your consultant should have experience managing stakeholder expectations at critical milestones throughout the process. As for validating experience, whilst case studies are valuable, it’s important to go a step beyond and ask deeper questions. Ask what type of process the consultant applied and how challenges were overcome in the course of a project . References can be invaluable. Direct introductions to project leaders within the organisation in the case study is a great way to assess the experience of working with the consultants. 3. Flexibility The process for running a successful consulting project must have the discipline to keep agreed outcomes on track. But it mustn’t be so inflexible as to not allow for the specific characteristics of your business culture and go-to-market approach. Is the approach proposed by the consultant respectful of the unique aspects of your business? Does it consider what is currently effective and important to team engagement and performance? Or is the consultant applying an inflexible boiler-plate process against your project? If so, you may want to re-evaluate their suitability. With the speed of change in business increasing rapidly it is critical that your consultant has their finger on the pulse of the evolution of business. Do they deeply understand what it takes to thrive in the new economy? Beyond this, will they undertake the project with enough agility and flexibility to ensure that any unexpected discoveries get acknowledged and addressed? You want to be certain that their approach is outcome-focused versus process-centric. 4. Critical Thinking The biggest difference between outstanding consultants and the rest is their problem-solving capability. You are engaging a consultant to solve a business problem, so ultimately you need creative problem-solving skills. Beyond the case study outcome, you must look for evidence about how insights were interpreted in a novel way. Even more importantly you will want to see how the application of innovative solutions created a significant advantage in moving the organisation forward. Take the time to get to know the team who will be working on your project. Look for evidence not only of exceptional analytical skills, but also the ability to apply creative and imaginative solutions to problems, in a way that will create value. That value may manifest across a diverse range of critical metrics that underpin the success of the project. 5. Principled & Purposeful Finally, you will be looking for exceptional professionalism. Or what is often referred to as an ‘unimpeachable character’. The consultant must demonstrate that they are able to put the client’s best interests ahead of their own. This comes down to individual and organisational purpose. You will want to explore whether the consultant and the organisation they work for are genuinely driven by the desire to help organisations fulfil their potential, or whether other motivations are at play. A principled consultant will be highly empathetic and will care deeply about their client and their goals. A principled consultant must also be willing to tell the client things that they may sometimes not want to hear. Often these unwelcome messages outline changes needed to achieve the desired outcomes. This entails putting honesty before politics, even if it means risking future business for the consultant. This type of candour, whilst sometimes confrontational and difficult to digest, should be highly valued. Conclusion Your criteria for choosing a business consultant should reflect the priorities and values
CSR is Dead
Why Purpose is moving from the sideline to the core of business strategy When the Royal Commission into Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services published its final report in February 2019, the death knell sounded loudly for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Kenneth Hayne’s report implicated Australia’s largest financial institutions as having engaged in conduct that fell well below community standards. It illustrated systemic issues of misconduct and serious lapses in moral judgement. Hayne was scathing in his assessment of our Big 4 banks, but he reserved his most damning comments for NAB’s since de-throned Chairman and CEO. In the same week they were due to testify to the commission, their staff had been pressuring brokers to sell 5 mortgages each before Christmas. Hayne stated, “My fear – that there may be a wide gap between the public face NAB seeks to show and what it does in practice – remains”. DISCONNECTED ACCOUNTABILITY And this is where the CSR problem lies – in the paradox between the cultivated public perception of societal commitment, and in the day-to-day behaviour in core business activity. This is further underscored by the fact that Australia’s biggest financial institutions are also some of the country’s most visible corporate philanthropists. For many organisations, Corporate Social Responsibility, has been used as a bolt-on – a well-intentioned but distinctly separate activity to core business. And not only in the financial services industry, which is just the easiest to pick on right now. When uncomfortable truths around ethical failings in core business come to light, CSR appears almost as a mea culpa. It comes across as a kind of atonement to help balance out the indiscretions committed. It’s clearer than ever that this disconnected model has serious flaws. The time has come for a new, more integrated approach – one that connects core business activity with commitment to a broader stakeholder framework. Corporate Social Responsibility is Being Replaced by Business Purpose A BRIEF HISTORY OF CSR So how did we get here? Company founders began to understand that stakeholders extended beyond the boardroom at the end of the 19th century. Wealthy philanthropists like Andrew Carnegie and John D Rockefeller believed that healthy, happy customers and communities were essential for business success. But it wasn’t until the 1940’s that laws were changed so that businesses, and not just their owners, could support charities, and with this shift corporate foundations were born. In 1953, Howard Bowen published The Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. He suggested that businesses have a social obligation “to follow those lines of action which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society”. But it was Peter Drucker who took the concept further, and laid down the thinking that would lead CSR to becoming a formalised business principle. In 1974 he wrote, “The business enterprise is a creature of a society and an economy, and society or economy can put any business out of existence overnight…The enterprise exists on sufferance and exists only as long as the society and the economy believe that it does a necessary, useful, and productive job.” Drucker’s seminal thinking led organisations to consider their impact on society and by the 1980’s business and social interests were more linked than ever. At the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio heads of state committed to sustainable development that would not compromise the planet for future generations. This led to businesses developing environmental policies to flank their community initiatives. By the new millennium Corporate Social Responsibility became a strategic imperative for leading businesses. In 2010 the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) published a set of voluntary standards intended to help organisations implement CSR. Its aim was to assist them to enhance society and the environment instead of contributing negatively to them. And so, for a while, CSR served us well. SOCIETY EXPECTS MORE But what we are currently experiencing is a fundamental shift in societal demands. There are many converging forces driving the evolution towards broader stakeholder integration. There is the democratisation and accessibility of information driven by the digital revolution. Once voiceless stakeholders now command a new level of power – customers, employees, shareholders, community members and even suppliers can be activists or disruptors. There is the growing economic influence of millennials, who need to ‘believe in’ the organisations they work for and the brands they buy from. And there is the growing remorse of retiring baby-boomers who are looking back and realising that perhaps they’d been led astray by Milton Friedman’s narrow definition of the responsibility of the corporation. They are now thinking about their legacies and righting some wrongs. There are many more drivers of change, all pointing to one irrefutable truth – in 2019 we all expect much more of businesses than ever before. GOODBYE CSR, HELLO PURPOSE So what does it take to evolve towards a more holistic approach? The first step is to start with organisational purpose. In 2017, when Blackrock Capital’s CEO, Larry Fink, published his annual Letter to CEO’s, it had a seismic effect on the global business community. He wrote, “Without a purpose, no company can fulfil its full potential. It will ultimately lose the licence to operate from its key stakeholders.” This instigation to the leaders helming companies in Blackrock’s USD$6.3 trillion portfolio, was an unequivocal call to action. He challenged them to understand their stakeholders and articulate a broader societal purpose. He saw it as an imperative for long-term value creation. Fink in no way gave them a hall pass on required shareholder returns. He asked them to balance competing priorities whilst taking a longer-term view to value growth. Whilst organisations like Unilever and Patagonia had embraced purpose-led strategy long before Fink’s missive, the effect was to escalate Purpose to a much broader audience of business leaders. A bigger movement, to transition purpose from a sideline activity to the core of business strategy, had begun. STAKEHOLDER INTEGRATION SUPERCHARGES GROWTH One of the biggest differences between this contemporary approach where purpose is at the centre of business strategy and