Authenticity – The Global Challenge
Posted on 
October 7, 2009 by 
Diane Coyle
Authenticity has great salience in our times because new information and communication technologies have greatly expanded the scale and scope of the inauthentic. For example, they have made identity fraud possible and also playful; many of us now have multiple personalities online. When it is easy to choose an identity, what does that imply for the underlying reality? How do I know who I am, and how do you know who I am, and how does my bank know who I am?
It is now so easy to make imitations that the value of the authentic has been enhanced. This phenomenon was pointed out by the critic Walter Benjamin long ago (in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction). Furthermore, given the historically unprecedented declines in the cost of computing and communication in the past 20-30 years, copying and sharing information has become easier and cheaper than anybody of an earlier generation could have imagined – especially when so many goods and services are digitally delivered. Managing this explosion in imitation is one of the real challenges of the digital age.
Popularity: 10% [?]
Category:
Authenticity · Tagged with:
· 
11 Comments
·
The Future Agenda provides a forum to discuss how to address the challenges we face and gives you the opportunity to share ideas, visions and solutions and ultimately seed change. I invite you to join in this discussion and contribute your view.
Future Agenda Blog RSS
Although I recognize the salience that authenticity has for the digital generation, the cause of sustainable well-being (personal, societal, ecological) would be much better served by a focus on integrity. Two conceptually distinct levels of meaning are important to define for the word integrity:
• First, the conventional, or “folk” definition, essentially means honesty and morality. For example, the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary gives it this definition:
Main Entry: in·teg·ri·ty
Pronunciation: in-’te-gr&-tE
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English integrite, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French integrité, from Latin integritat-, integritas, from integr-, integer entire
1 : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : INCORRUPTIBILITY
2 : an unimpaired condition : SOUNDNESS
3 : the quality or state of being complete or undivided : COMPLETENESS [i.e., “WHOLENESS”]
Synonym see HONESTY.
• Second, a technically more powerful definition is one that embraces the idea of “Integral” Systems Theory. For example, the late genius architect and general systems theorist, R. Buckminster Fuller gave it this definition: Integrity is when all necessary parts of a system are present and in their optimal functional relationship to all the other parts.
Although the first definition (i.e., morality and transparency) is clearly where all this needs to begin, the second definition will surely come to be essential in the long-run, for it is precisely this “systems” definition of integrity that is essential for the realization of a “sustainable” society that is healthy, prosperous and just. And, what is called transparency is key for both.
Ashoka International recognizes the importances of these distinctions with their Transparency International Integrity Award–precisely the type of social innovation that the world needs more of at this time.
Finally, it is interesting to note that a recent book The Integrity Dividend, by Tony Simons, presents evidence how what is called Behavioral Integrity significantly increases the bottom line profitability in service-oriented businesses.
In the world of food and drink we are consistently trying to reinvent the authentic. Beer is perhaps the best example of an industry where the reintroduction of old brands that we, as global companies, probably bought as part of an aquisition but have never used. More and more we look to resurrect these old traditional brands for either local niche markets or global / regional ones. Rather than inventing a new name, we often find that we have an ideal authentic one already to hand. Our challenge is to update the product and align it around brand authenticity. I see this as increasing going forward and spreading across sectors as a major marketing trend. One clear example of this right now is in the financial services arena. After the recent crisis many of the tainted brands are resurrecting old brands that maybe trusted more. In the UK RBS are pushing NatWest and Lloyds seem to be starting to reintroduce TSB. Whether consumers accept this – or reject it as a smoke and mirrors effort – will be intersting to note.
Authenticity is an abstract concept – it might indeed be too abstract to be useful. The dangers are that it is too broad and woolly to produce helpful outcomes: Authenticity can be good or bad depending on the context. There is no cohesive version of authenticity. To establish what changes may occur before 2020, these issues need to be separated out and processed.
One perspective that needs to be clear here is the difference between authenticity and authentication. ‘Authentication’ involves technological (or physical) measures of verification, whereas ‘authenticity’ is a more human attribute. For example biometric identification systems and digital rights management are two existing systems of authentication but Digital Rights Management has, to date, been a complete failure, in spite of huge investment; it will not improve in the future for fundamental technical and legal reasons.
As Dave Birch and others have all highlighted, authentication is just about proving that something is or is not true. Are you over 18? Are you allowed into this building? Do you have a ticket? These are all examples where authentication is required – but no more.
Another conundrum in the authenticity debate stems from the fact that no one can have an ‘inauthentic’ experience, yet no one can create a totally ‘authentic’ experience either. Authenticity is therefore an experience rather than how I am interacting or who I am.
Authenticity is not a hodgepodge of concepts, but a prism to look at a range of issues that arise in virtual and digital societies: “Triangulation” is a paradigm for the process by which people decide who to trust, using multiple sources. When faced with a critical decision, people look for different degrees of authenticity and balance the varied levels of trust that they have in different forms of information and data.
“People continually make extravagant claims for what’s already happening in online networks, yet it’s important to remember that it’s still a very thin stratum of people who actually engage.” 0.2% of people responded to a Facebook consultation sent out to the 600m Facebook ‘community’. It is possible to have communities but you need to have the algorithms for power. How do you weigh the influences of those who respond?
How do you use technology to make things incrementally better? In the Obama campaign, the idea was that people could ‘get inside’ the campaign and be part of the network and make a fundamental difference. This gives the impression of being on the ‘inside’ of the campaign, even though the reality might be different. Is this an authentic experience?
In the next decade, the biggest challenge will be for established institutions and brands: Wikipedia, Last FM and the Obama campaign were all developed when the rules were emerging; you have much more flexibility to be on the bleeding edge when you are a start-up. But established brands are so much more bound by structures and procedures: It will be interesting to see how they will adapt and innovate going forward.
I’d like to pick up on a couple of points made both in Diane Coyle’s comments about “Authenticity” and various remarks about the future of cash, particularly those which refer to the potential transition from cash to payments based on, say, mobile phones or “contactless” cards.
I am not aware of a single country anywhere in the world where there is not one or more laws or strong social conventions which limit a number of goods and services from being provided or sold to legal minors. In the UK, for example, it is a crime to sell certain classes of movies to children below the age of 12, or others to persons below the age of 15. Computer games will soon be covered by a similar law. Over 18 games and movies already are covered by clear laws. Then there are things like solvents, spray paints, fireworks, lottery tickets, alcohol, tobacco, knives and so on.
I know some people think these laws are silly and ought to be ditched, but that’s a separate point. Personally I do not think most of these laws are silly but whether they are or not is a little beside the point because there is no immediate prospect of most of them being repealed. In fact, in the digital age, it could well become even easier for them to be better enforced than they often have been hitherto in the real world.
To illustrate the point: in theory every UK mobile phone company already knows whether or not one of its customers is under the age of 18. Some companies have already said they intend to achieve a greater level of granularity for the sub-18s so young phone users could soon be stratified as sub-12s, 12-15, 16-17, or something along those lines.
In a cashless world where payment is made via a mobile phone, or a card of some kind, the relevant age information could be linked to the payment side so, for example, a child would not be able to buy alcohol with that phone or card because the system attempting to pick up the payment would note that the card or device was registered to a minor.
No other information about the child or the person need be rendered. Age is the only relevant factor. It would simply be a “yes” or a “no” to the question: “Is the registered owner of this payment system above the minimum age required to buy this product or service?” Such a practice more or less only reflects what the vendor is meant to do anyway. In fact it does rather less because, typically, in a shop or supermarket the person might be required to produce a passport or some other form of (valuable) personal ID that will almost invariably contain other information about the person and is always the subject of potential loss or theft, raising a whole heap of other issues.
So I see this as a limited form of authentication, but one which will soon start to become increasingly common in the online and other digital spaces. The UK’s gambling industry has shown that it is not difficult to introduce inexpensive systems of age verification and authentication. The only thing I find astonishing is that other companies – household name companies – have not rushed to emulate their lead.
Clearly it would still be possible for a 12 year old to “borrow” an older sibling’s phone and use it to try to buy cigarettes or alcohol. Such an approach would therefore not obviate the need for commonsense to be applied by vendors. But it would certainly be a valuable additional tool and could make an important contribution to helping retailers to discharge their legal obligations. More importantly it would help protect children and young people from a range of hazards they are not yet properly equipped to deal with.
Authenticity – creating value by integrating external claims and competencies
A slight but highly fundamental change in the way of creating economic value is observable over the past decade. For a long time, corporate value chains remained secretly walled off from their environment. But over the past few years, globalisation and digitalisation have blurred the boundaries between the organisation and its social and ecological surroundings and made them permeable. Value is increasingly created by internalising external claims and competencies, or even by collaborations between the company and its customers or other stakeholder groups.
Future companies will have to engage the competencies of their environments to be perceived as authentic; but new channels of communication still have to be discovered for a productive communication between the two.
One of the areas where the relationship between companies and their stakeholders is changing radically is the field of innovation.
Creating Value Beyond Corporate Structures – Open Innovation
Integrating the knowledge of expert consumers is only a single step away from letting employed engineers create innovation in closed-off inner-organisational laboratories, e.g. by involving professional athletes in the development of sports equipment. The enablers of Palomar Camp pushed the idea of using alternative sources of competency even further: it was their aim to show a way of reforming innovation itself and to create new formats for people to cooperate. Using a selective application process, people younger than 30, from different nationalities, genders, and professions were selected to create a diverse network by living together for six weeks. The sponsoring companies, i.e. German Telekom, benefited from their generated ideas for future markets and products. But innovation is also created between organisational boundaries, by other players in the economic field:
Crossing the traditional boundaries between competitors, more and more companies collaborate in the field of R&D or purchasing to share both costs and risks, e.g. Daimler and BMW in the field of technology development. Major IT-companies are providing their infrastructure to small IT-start-ups to benefit, in turn, from the latter’s specialised knowledge about the constantly accelerating pace of ICT development. New web-platforms such as InnoCentive support the convergence of economic actors by providing them with room for exchange. But “coopetition” needs more than a technical platform: it requires a complete rethink of the relation between the company and its environment. Engaging with a competitor’s ideas implies the overcoming of inner-organizational barriers and the fear of showing too much transparency. Taking on the customers’ ideas requires companies to commit to a new concept of feasibility and flexibility. The rapidly changing demands of the market and its growing complexity will increasingly imply these project-oriented and decentralized forms of cooperation – be it taking on the ideas of a group of students or even those of competitors.
Authenticity by Integrating Society’s Claims
But to become market leaders, economic actors now have to extend the model of cooperation even further to external actors who strike their business only indirectly: the boom of green markets such as sustainability funds or green tech products are evidence of a strong connection between economic success and adherence to the claims of broader society. When confronted with a social movement that considers the economy as the origin of climate change and resource stress, companies had better react to these critical voices. Otherwise boycotts – not only driven by NGOs but also by consumers coming from the midst of society – will threaten economic success. Proactive, efficient handling of natural resources or the voluntary implementation of ethical standards are one step towards acting as a part of society – by internalizing its needs and meeting them by merging social, ecological and economic stakes. The oft-criticised “green-washing” should be the first step towards real organisational change and sustainability, and thus its coercive diffusion among the economic actors.
Both examples of open innovation and corporate responsibility show that in the future, authenticity will be harder for companies to attain, but simultaneously be more decisive for surviving competition. Fundamental for economic success will be the company’s positioning within its network of direct and indirect stakeholders, its transparency, its responsiveness towards diverse social and ecological claims and its ability to involve them into its value creating activities.
Hendrikje Riemann is a Foresight Analyst at Z_punkt The Foresight Company. She studied sociology, economics, and intercultural business communication at Friedrich Schiller University of Jena, Tulane University New Orleans, and Northern Arizona University Flagstaff. She has hands-on experience in industrial and economic sociology as well as in corporate strategy and CSR.