Experian’s latest report is woefully silent on recent issues facing the credit-checking company
The main product of Experian, the Dublin-based company known predominantly for credit checking, is information. It collects information on people and businesses around the world, which it analyses and sells to other people. Dealing with detailed personal data means that the information services business is complex, esoteric, and potentially controversial. And Experian has generated its share of controversy, with recent concerns raised by the Investment Management Association (IMA) around conflicts of interest in board-level reshuffles, and lack of transparency for customers.
Experian’s 2014 Corporate Responsibility Report presented the perfect opportunity to deal with specific concerns over the previous year, and the broader issue of privacy. Readers want to be convinced that Experian can be trusted with our information and will use its considerable influence responsibly. We expect discussion of the more intangible areas of sustainability including governance, social and economic performance. Whilst what we get is certainly in line with expectations, but the company could do a lot better at reflecting reality.
Experian’s newly updated social responsibility programme – Heart of Experian – has a good structure, which targets many of the subjects we would expect. Its three goals are to support financial inclusion, financial education, and growth of small-scale entrepreneurs. The report’s content is divided neatly into differentiators (corporate responsibility value that comes from Experian’s products and services, customer support, and community partnerships) and a shorter section for fundamentals (routine aspects of sustainability including energy efficiency and employee engagement). The distinction between differentiators and fundamentals means that the majority of content is unique to Experian, and thus feels fresh and engaging for readers.
Each of the three differentiators has a corresponding case study, brought to life by stakeholder quotes and pictures. The stand-out story, in terms of sheer ambition and social impact, is Experian’s collaboration with the Indian government: providing an electronic ID system for people who don’t officially exist, and therefore have no access to formal banking. We are not informed of the exact nature of this partnership – whether philanthropic or purely commercial – but nevertheless, it is a captivating story.
Style over substance
Examples of collaboration are a prominent feature of the report, but there is a noticeable lack of substance in how these are addressed. It would have been useful to build on how “stakeholders’ views can be challenging”, to demonstrate Experian’s strategy for its not-so-rosy relationships. The reader is left wanting more on how negative feedback is addressed.
This brings us to the report’s main shortcoming: despite appearing to have a robust strategy and commendable projects, it feels as though Experian is skirting the real issues. As well as concerns raised about governance, transparency and fraud, Experian’s corporate responsibility strategy has recently been through a major transition and there were undoubtedly challenges here too. The omission of these issues leaves the reader feeling short-changed.
Failure to address some of the real concerns indicates a lack of self-awareness. By focusing solely on the Heart of Experian programme throughout the report, we are unconvinced that Experian’s corporate responsibility department is really integrated with core business, and instead feel that corporate responsibility activities are tacked on as a side-line. This is a real shame, particularly after Experian has visibly endeavoured for years to embed corporate responsibility into its core business, and has developed a shiny new framework for this year. The reader does not doubt that core business priorities are reflected in its responsibility work, but whether the reverse is true appears doubtful. Where were its governance and stakeholder engagement policies when dealing with a contentious management shakeup and unhappy customers?
A simple step that could improve the report dramatically is to include a set of concrete commitments around existing corporate responsibility work. There are currently only a handful of targets scattered through the report; an indication of direction, ambition and progress would help give context to existing work. For example, Experian’s $6.9m community investment is intended to “help sustain a business environment in which we can be successful”. What does this really mean, and how does it fit with broader goals?
A lack of targets means that we have no way of gauging how well Experian is doing – in comparison to peers and measured on its own terms – and why it’s doing it.
With solid commitments and frank discussion of material issues, this could be a good report. The design is good: cleanly and simply presented, not too long, and with visually engaging facts and figures. The content is interesting and enjoyable to read. But the report is weakened by failing to reflect recent controversies (widely discussed on the web), customer concerns and material issues.
Without a comprehensive outline of future plans, current activities become much less credible. Experian needs to have a good think about how “Heart of Experian” can really reflect the heart of its business.
Elen Newcombe is a Research Analyst at Context Europe.
SNAPSHOT
- Follows GRI? No
- Assured? Yes, by PwC
- Materiality analysis? No
- Goals? Yes, high level
- Targets? A few, but scattered
- Stakeholder input? Yes
- Seeks feedback? No
- Key strengths? Clean design, good visuals and engaging case studies
- Chief weakness? Lack of self-awareness: skirting meaty issues and lack of future commitments
- Pleasant surprise? Interesting and convincing quotes from many stakeholders