NEWS19 July 2010
NETHERLANDS— Esomar director general Finn Raben today defended the organisation against charges that it was “draconian” in its decision to remove US representative Tom Anderson from his post following his criticism of attempts to introduce the ISO research quality standard to the US market.
The Esomar Council decided last week that Anderson’s “continued stance on this issue was not compatible with his role and obligations as an Esomar representative” and as such his status as representative was revoked.
Speaking to Research, Raben said: “If anybody assumes that just because someone speaks out we are out there brandishing fire and brimstone they are wrong. There were many attempts to move forward in partnership before this action took place.”
Anderson ran into trouble with Esomar over comments made in his blog and, in particular, on the Next Gen Market Research (NGMR) group he runs on business networking site Linkedin.
A debate began after Research reported news of the Council of American Survey Research Organisations’s (Casro) decision to establish a committee to audit US agencies who wished to adhere to the ISO research process quality standards, ISO 20252 and 26362.
Esomar is a supporter of the ISO standards – but Raben says the organisation was prompted into action more by Anderson’s criticism of Casro, with whom it maintains a working relationship, than by his attacks on the ISO.
In one post Anderson implied that Casro’s interest in promoting the ISO standard in the US was financially motivated. He wrote: “Probably good part [sic] of the reason Casro is interested (an additional revenue stream)” – but Casro’s ISO audit committee has been set up to run as a not-for-profit.
“The debate around the ISO standards was reasonably balanced until the attacks made against Casro,” said Raben. “It was that which prompted Esomar to get invoved… it was too forceful an attack on an organisation that is only trying to do its best for the industry.”
Raben said Esomar communicated its concerns to Anderson both verbally and in writing. “We told him we fully understood that he had his own point of view, but as a representative and ambassador for Esomar, if those kinds of views are going to be expressed, the least we would require is that the debate would be balanced,” said Raben.
“We felt that that balance was missing from Tom’s contributions and in the way he hosted the debate.”
Raben insisted: “We are not against having an active and energetic debate about where the industry should or should not go, but that debate should be informed and participants should benefit from that debate. Such debates need not be personal or critical of others’ views.”
In the wake of the Anderson dispute, Esomar issued all 82 of its country representatives with a charter outlining their responsibilities. Some have construed this as an attempt by Esomar to clamp down on further dissent in the ranks, but Raben says this is not the case.
“Esomar has a set of values and we have to ensure that those values are respected,” he said. Representatives have previously been required to sign a charter, though not for a number of years, and Raben acknowledged that recent events had prompted the organisation to revisit the document.
Council members have to sign a charter, he said, but asked whether representatives also had to sign it, Raben said: “We would like them to sign it. If they have an issue with it, we would like to have that discussion with them.”
And as for Anderson, Raben said: “Tom is still a member. The fact that he isn’t a representative any more does not prevent him from being a member and I would sincerely hope that he remains one.”