Name and shame

When I was younger and very involved in advocacy and development, I saw naming and shaming used as a tool to get some big corporation or government to do what we thought was reasonable.

A company isn't paying taxes and defaulting on sustainability commitments? Create a list of companies evading taxes and put them there. Get them ranked low on an ESG scoreboard.

A government isn't paying attention enough to a social cause? Send them your five-point request and shame them publicly for not being responsive.

Employees are being late for work? Create a version of the latecomer hall of fame (or hall of shame) so no one wants to be in it.

And it works. Or so we thought.

I no longer believe naming and shaming is the most effective strategy to sustain any impact. Instead, we can find other ways. Including making incentives align for good.

Shame enables a form of death. It opens the door to a vicious cycle. You shame others to conform to a behaviour and become intolerant to anyone who doesn't hold a similar opinion as you. In response, they mirror your energy and try to shame you into becoming more 'open-minded' like them. Then, you both project pain on one another.

When used for advocacy, it fuels anger and gets people to demand accountability. On the flip side, when we put aside issues and discuss individuals and ideologies, it fuels cancel culture and silences unpopular voices.

In any shame-ridden environment, what we lose in the level of human consciousness outweighs whatever we get in return.

Spanking a child is the laziest form of instilling discipline. Naming and shaming is the laziest way to make anyone do anything.

There are always better alternatives when we choose to find them.