The "name and shame" has recently been put forward by members of the government, such as Bruno Le Maire or Olivia Grégoire. Their objective: to deter actors from violating measures or laws put in place by the executive. If the expression means "to name and blame or humiliate" in French, what is really behind this Anglicism? And above all: is it an effective communication technique? Le Figaro takes stock.
In a very concrete way, this technique "consists of publicly revealing the identity or actions of a person or organization in order to criticize, denounce or discredit them," says Carina Cheklit, communications strategist. Well aware of the repercussions that the "name and shame" can generate, the government published at the end of December a decree allowing the Suppression of Fraud (DGCCRF) to be able to "reveal the identity of companies sanctioned for any illegal practice", in order to strengthen "the deterrent nature of the follow-up it implements following controls".
See alsoAmerican Fugue, by Bruno Le Maire: lost illusions
A 'public disgrace'
And now, the executive no longer hesitates to use this strategy. As part of the implementation of the bill on the regulation of influencers, Bruno Le Maire explained on May 3 on France Info that the government would "give the names of influencers who have not respected the rules in the coming days". A week later, on May 10, it was the turn of the Minister Delegate for Trade, Olivia Grégoire, to warn food manufacturers who would not lower their prices: "We will do "name and shame", we will publicly quote brands that do not want to negotiate downwards and I am not sure that it will advertise [them]. A proposal encouraged by Arnaud Rousseau, the new boss of the National Federation of Farmers' Unions (FNSEA), who called on May 14 "to designate those who abuse".
If, for the moment, no name of influencer or industrialist has yet been published, "the objective is to dissuade them" and "encourage others" to act correctly, says Carine Cheklit, and to add that "this technique is based on the idea of a 'public shame' that can have negative consequences on the reputation, career or activities of a person or organization, thus pushing them to change their behaviour".
For the specialist, this is not the first time that the government has resorted to "name and shame": "It has already used it on subjects of public utility such as the transparency of wage gaps, the fight against tax fraud or abusive commercial practices. This strategy is now more publicized than before, with politicians choosing to use this method to mobilize public opinion." And the executive is not the only one to resort to this technique. NGOs denounce, for example, "companies that do not respect environmental standards or human rights, while consumer groups use it to highlight unfair commercial practices," says Carina Cheklit.
" READ ALSO Questioned by Greenpeace on its greenhouse gas emissions, TotalEnergies counter-attack
Serious financial consequences
In the age of social networks, the "name and shame" can be terribly effective and be massively relayed by Internet users, directly damaging the reputation of a company. "Let's take a very concrete example, in the field of food safety, cases of recalls of contaminated or dangerous products have led to the public disclosure of the names of companies concerned. This aims to inform consumers and deter companies from neglecting food safety standards. We still remember the recent scandals of the Buitonior Ferrero brands that marked public opinion, "says the communication strategist.
However, "name and shame" is not a risk-free solution because, "in some cases, public exposure can lead to significant negative consequences or have a more limited impact". For example, "some people may question the whistleblower's motivations, credibility, or the validity of what they say." Conversely, "the financial consequences can be serious for the one who is denounced with a decline in sales, the loss of contracts or partnerships, legal disputes, fines or other financial penalties," insists Carina Cheklit.
According to the strategist, this practice still raises "questions of fairness and transparency because it can lead to unilateral denunciations, without the possibility of a balanced response, or to unfair stigmatizations". "The application of 'name and shame' must therefore be used with caution and balance to avoid abuse or injustice," concludes the specialist.
