Transcript
[00:00:05.480] - Imogen
Hello and welcome to Dear Comms, the coffee break podcast where we tackle your biggest corporate comms challenges. I'm Imogen
[00:00:15.100] - Amanda
and I'm Amanda. We're here to give you practical, no-nonsense advice so you can focus on the things that will really drive influence, engagement, and impact.
[00:00:24.080] - Imogen
Today, I'm thrilled to say we've been joined by Katarina Wallin Bureau. She is a seasoned strategist who's worked at that intersection of strategy, purpose, and influence for many years. She's helped companies understand the policy landscape about building trust with key stakeholders and how to become a credible voice on issues like sustainability and ESG. She's currently the General Manager of Strategic Relations in the European Government Affairs team of Microsoft. Katarina, welcome to DiA Comms.
[00:00:56.380] - Katarina
Thank you, Imogen and Amanda. It's great to be here.
[00:00:59.090] - Amanda
Katarina, let's start with the basics. I think most people have historically directly thought government affairs happens behind closed doors, but the reality is that it touches everyday communications more than people realize, I think. So for listeners who might wear both hats or work closely with government relations colleagues, can you paint a picture of what government affairs actually looks like day to day and how it all connects into the mix?
[00:01:26.890] - Katarina
And I think, as you say, it is very connected and even more so as we evolve in a world that is just becoming more and more complicated, competitive, and requires integrated thinking across all functions, and not least when it comes to government affairs and communications. So if you think about it, so at a very basic level, I think government affairs in practice has perhaps two key elements. It's obviously about tracking and helping to shape legislative and regulatory developments that are critical to, to a business, and then also to comply with that legislation and create legal clarity and engage with policymakers really to shape outcomes that are critical to business goals. On the other hand, it's very much about, as you hinted at, relationship building and stakeholder engagement. It's all about building trust, and we spend a lot of time building trusted relationships with decision makers, civil servants, political influencers, policymakers, to foster a dialog and collaboration so that ideally we drive towards outcomes that are beneficial both to a company's business goals as well as to the society that those politicians are working in. So it's very much, I think, a collaborative effort between the company's representatives and the government affairs stakeholders.
[00:02:52.480]
And it includes everything from articulating the organization's position on key issues, anticipating geopolitical shifts, anticipating trends. And why the link, of course, with communications is so important is because in that engagement, the narrative that you're telling about your organization, the messages that you're sharing, they need to be consistent, they need to be aligned. And that's where working closely with your communications colleagues is so important.
[00:03:20.960] - Imogen
I think that's absolutely right. I think if your policy and your comms don't sync up, there can be massive fallout. I mean, we've had clients that have had a major policy shift leak before comms was briefed and ready. And so, of course, the comms team then spends days firefighting, which could have been avoided and we could have been a lot more aligned. If we're not working together with our government relations colleagues, we're not able to craft the right story together. And if we're not crafting the story together, then someone else is going to be writing and telling that story for us, I guess. I think government relations, government affairs has changed a lot, and that the rules of influence have changed a lot. It used to be a lot about long lunches, events, um, and while some of that still probably happens, I think speed and scrutiny and stakeholder pressure has ramped up and is now relentless. How have you seen over your career, how have you seen the role of government affairs evolve? And for our listeners, what's changed in the way in which comms and government affairs work together?
[00:04:35.350] - Katarina
Well, I think you described it really well, Imogen, and, and a bit as we said, uh, in the earlier question, the role really has shifted toward much more stakeholder engagement, trust building, and we're going to talk about purpose as well, this kind of more purpose-driven influence. And again, that is, you know, related to many things, not least the fact that geopolitics is just becoming more and more complicated. I work, of course, in an industry where it's huge technological developments, the development of AI. This is going to impact just— this is going to be a real transformation of society. So the way that we think about the role of of companies and how much they will shape society. It's just, you can't just be, as you said, you know, doing events or be focused on regulatory amendments. You really need to play a much broader societal role. And I think government affairs function, how it's evolved, reflects that.
[00:05:34.320] - Amanda
Yeah, I can't agree more about working hand in hand to be credible under all of the different scrutiny. You know, companies, you're dealing with regulators, activists, investors, all expecting instant answers. So, you know, you have to be integrated. It's not a nice-to-have, it's survival these days, I think. I wanted to pick up on a word that slipped in there, and that's a mutual passion of ours, purpose. It gets thrown around, a bit of a buzzword in boardrooms. You know, it only matters if it shapes real decisions. In your view, how do you make sure a company purpose actually drives policy positions and doesn't just sit in that company narrative or brand deck.
[00:06:24.150] - Katarina
So you won't be surprised to hear that I think, although purpose isn't as popular a term at the moment, it's just more important than ever. And I think successful policy engagement really starts with a clear purpose, whether it's influencing legislation, whether it's doing successful stakeholder management. If you haven't got a clear link back to your purpose, that policy engagement risks becoming reactive, transactional, and just inauthentic or not credible. So if you think about purpose as the why, whether the values, the mission, the societal impact, policy perhaps is the how, the whatever the compliance you're driving for, the legislative framework that you're what you're driving for, but that needs to be rooted in, in what the company's purpose or mission is. So, in my role, for example, it's about framing advocacy around shared values. So, we talk about sustainability or digital trust, or we were talking about digital safety earlier, or inclusion, you know, policies that really reflect the purpose or the impact that your company wants to have on the world. And communications is linked to that again, communications to amplify your purpose, ensuring the policy isn't just about shaping legislation, but is actually a narrative and tells a story about positive role that you want, that you believe your company can play?
[00:07:43.180] - Imogen
I think as with all communications, employees, wider society are very quick to spot when there's a mismatch between what's being said and what's being done. There needs to be alignment between what you are saying internally and how you're acting externally on the policy side of things. You know, there are, endless stories in the media about companies who are sort of lauding their sustainability commitments and credentials, for example, but then at the same time they're lobbying for policies that don't actually align with those claims.
[00:08:19.740] - Katarina
Yeah.
[00:08:20.610] - Imogen
We've all sat in rooms, Katarina, I'm sure you have, where leaders are saying, you know, we need to have a position on this, we need to put something out now. But sometimes speaking first and thinking later can backfire, as we know. In your experience, what's the biggest mistake you see companies make when it comes to taking public stance on environmental or sustainability issues?
[00:08:49.270] - Katarina
The worst mistake that you can make is coming up with sustainability objectives or purpose statements that aren't rooted in a company's actual business activities and actual impact, both positive and negative. So, you know, you need to address where you have a negative impact— environmental, social, or in governance— and you need to figure out how you can use your business to have a positive impact. I'll come back to Microsoft, but just before that, perhaps thinking back to my days at RISE, which was a corporate purpose consultancy that I led, you know, we worked, for example, with— we worked with a big bank, we worked with a big brewery, obviously two very different types of businesses. Both used the UN Sustainable Development Goals to guide their strategies. But the bank, you know, its opportunity to actually really have an impact was to rebalance its loan book towards clients that are decarbonizing and provide more financing to clients who are trying to reduce their carbon emissions, etc. So they set targets and really tried to reshape their activities through their loan books to have a positive environmental impact. For the brewery, where, for example, brewing is a very water-intensive process, very carbon-emitting process, so they worked a lot on setting goals there to see how they could address that process, the brewing process, but also looked at the social aspects, for example, so both positive and negative of alcohol consumption.
[00:10:20.240]
So You need to tie this, the whole sustainability planning, goal setting, purpose development to the core impact, I think both positive and negative, that your business has.
[00:10:32.260] - Amanda
I think stakeholders absolutely now hold companies to account, and, and so they should. You know, I think anything that isn't rooted in, in your core business and has hard data, it's just, it's fluff, isn't it? It's flashy announcements with nothing behind them, and I think people can smell that from a mile away. Absolutely. With influence, I think you'll agree that isn't about how many coffees you've had in Brussels. It's about shifting thinking or decisions. In your role and your experience, how should organizations be thinking about measuring true influence and impact, I guess?
[00:11:17.310] - Katarina
That's a good question. I mean, again, it comes back to the question of trust and the question of acting in a way that's consistent with your purpose. And I've heard our CEO, Satya Nadella, several years in a row now when we have our annual strategy summit in Seattle, quote Colin Meyer from Oxford Business School saying companies have to develop profitable solutions to the problems of people and planet, which I think is sort of the ultimate definition of purpose. And if I think back to our mission, which is about empowering every person, organization on the planet to achieve more. Everything we try to do in Brussels and in the EU from an engagement perspective and in terms of, you know, working with EU stakeholders to help them achieve their objectives is rooted back in that. What role can we play that does actually help empower the EU, but ultimately the world, to achieve more when it comes to competitiveness, when it comes to digitalization, when it comes to improving the quality of life, skilling, How can we connect our mission to what society needs so that, you know, the profitable solutions to the problems of people and planet?
[00:12:25.150]
If you constantly have that as your guiding principle, that is about connecting to society's goals and what you can contribute to that, then I think that helps build trust and helps you be influential. So it's about putting people and your stakeholders at the center.
[00:12:42.710] - Imogen
Yeah, it's a tough one, isn't it? Whether you're government affairs, communications, there's always vanity metrics you can rely on, but it's slightly more difficult to measure outcome as opposed to output. I think if we're going to be influential, if we're going to be trusted, we need to make sure we have metrics and action as a result of our work. The risk is, of course, if we don't have those, if we can't show where we've made a difference, we are perceived as purpose washing.
[00:13:12.420] - Katarina
You're absolutely right. And of course, we do measure, and as you know, you can argue, and I think about exactly the same way, outcome versus output. And you can, you can measure numbers of articles, and you can measure the number of times you're mentioned in those articles, and is the right— are the right messages in those articles, etc., etc. So there's, you know, all that type of measurement. On the government affairs side, sometimes, to some extent, it's easier because you can actually say, okay, you know, to what extent did our engagement lead to policy outcomes that reflected our objectives. So that's one way of measuring. You can measure number of meetings, blah, blah, blah, more input and output. But how do you measure if your objective is to be the most trusted company working on the most important technology, which is the outcome we're looking for? How do you actually measure that? You know, some of it is subjective, you know, soft metrics, what you hear back from your stakeholders. We need to think of different and feeding back. And we, you know, do a lot of feeding back conversations. Which environments are you actually invited in to have conversations?
[00:14:13.180] - Amanda
I take you back to being authentic as well, from what you're saying, is the showing up, being consistent, having a view. And I think it's firmly on us as advisors, I think, to counsel leaders in terms of no proof, no pledge. You know, if you haven't got that substantial proof and evidence that you're doing what you're saying, then that policy isn't ready for public primetime, if you like. And I think as advisors, we've got to think across policy, comms, reputation, and challenge back to the business when needed. Who— what do you think are good skills for those listening who want a seat at the top table, whether they're in government relations or communications? What's going to make them indispensable going forward when navigating such complex issues in the next few years?
[00:15:16.510] - Katarina
To your point about showing up consistently and being credible, you've got to, as government affairs or communications advisors internally, be ready to say to your leaders that, you know, if we really want to be seen, so in our case, as a partner to Europe, and if that is our narrative and our commitment, then we have to also, um, you know, comply with the rules in Europe. We can't be consistently saying, you know, we don't like your regulatory framework. And, you know, they're going to be elements of it that we don't like. There are always elements of, of laws or that, that aren't companies don't think are ideal. But if you, if we're saying that we're a partner and we're here and we're, you know, true to our mission, then we, we can help try and help shape in a way that we think is beneficial. But ultimately, you know, we need to comply. And I think we need to be able to feed that back to our leaders and say, this is what we're hearing, this is what we believe is the right course of action if we really want to be a partner. To Europe.
[00:16:14.940]
And so, the skills you need to find, you need to find a way to navigate and to build trust in the environment where you're working, but you also need to find a way to navigate and build trust internally. And that, you know, isn't always easy. And you want to, I think everybody wants to tell people what they like to hear, but sometimes you need to hear, they need to hear the things that are, you know, the right course for the business.
[00:16:36.350] - Imogen
It takes courage, doesn't it? And I think courage is probably something that all advisors, whether government affairs, whether communicators, need to have because we are in that position where we need to know when to say no. Sometimes we've got to look our leaders in the eye and say, "This is not a good idea, and I do not advise you do this." It's never easy, and I think a lot of people shy away from it because they want to They want to help, they want to be able to make things happen. But sometimes the power of actually standing up to leadership and talking truth to power is better than having some kind of reputational firestorm later down the line.
[00:17:25.490] - Amanda
Yeah, you can have the ambition, but not the credibility. I don't think that balance is easy. Katarina, what's the biggest, hardest trade-off? You've had to make from a purpose and a pragmatism perspective? And what did you learn from it?
[00:17:41.920] - Katarina
That sort of tension has played out most for me when working with clients who are— you've helped them articulate, trying to help them articulate a purpose, trying to help them align that with their business strategy. But then you see that, you know, there are some really tough decisions to be made and that that business strategy isn't always necessarily aligned with that purpose. And then so you need to try and help on the one hand advise and guide and say, this is, you know, you've set yourself an ambition, you know, you need to, those targets should probably be a little more ambitious if you're really going to meet that ambition. But at the same time, you can't completely ignore the business reality either.
[00:18:24.530] - Amanda
So, it's a tough one, isn't it?
[00:18:28.590] - Katarina
And it's easier because you're not the one who has to ultimately make the decision. But on the other hand, you also, you know, You don't want to be, as you say, purpose washing about it and say, okay, well, now you've articulated and announced this big purpose, but then all your actions are not consistent with that. That, yeah, isn't a good way to go either, and it's going to come back and bite you at some point.
[00:18:48.420] - Imogen
It's so hard being in that position of advisor in the fact that ultimately, as you say, Katrina, you are not the one who has to make that final decision, and you can only kind of give your opinion and then sort of sit back and see it all unfold in front of you.
[00:19:04.170] - Katarina
And I think coming back to the skills though, listening is a very important skill, both, you know, whether you're working in-house or as an advisor. And if you listen carefully, both to the concerns, whether of your clients or of your stakeholders or your, you know, leaders, you can— the more you listen, the more you can understand perhaps what's driving their concern and then, you know, eventually figure out some sort of solution. But I think jumping to—
[00:19:31.910] - Amanda
Vastly underrated listening, I reckon.
[00:19:33.600] - Katarina
Vastly underrated, I think. It is also key to building trust, by the way.
[00:19:40.500] - Imogen
And on that note, Katherine, I think we're going to have to wrap the conversation up for today. Thank you so much for your time. I think that no matter where our listeners are sitting, whether they have government relations, in their job description or not, the lessons that we're sharing about credibility, about purpose, and about influence is something that's universal to every communicator.
[00:20:04.520] - Amanda
Yes, Katarina, thank you. We'll pop a link to connect with Katarina in the show notes. And as always, if you've got a question or dilemma you want us to tackle on Dear Comms, get in touch. Bye-bye.
[00:20:18.510] - Katarina
Thank you so much. Bye!
)
