Skip to content
Client area
EN
Request a demo
CSR · Corporate Social Responsibility · programme 10

Anchor the brand image

Align the team's actions with the company's public commitments.

Why this programme

What the company promises externally must be known internally. The programme introduces teams to your public commitments and challenges them to translate those commitments into concrete actions at their own level.

The greatness of a profession is perhaps, above all, to unite people: there is only one true luxury, and that is human relationships.

Antoine de Saint-Exupérywriter and aviatorWind, Sand and Stars (Terre des hommes), chap. II “The Craft”, 1939

What your teams experience

  1. Our promises: recall the company’s public commitments, to the letter.
  2. The mirror: compare what we promise with what we do, through an anonymous vote.
  3. The translation: each team translates a commitment into an everyday action.
  4. The ambassador: the room chooses the actions it will champion.

Each activity opens and closes with a projected cinematic sequence, personalised for your teams. The facilitator sets the pace: nothing moves forward without them.

What the company gains

Public commitments known to everyone, and internal actions aligned with the brand promise.

5 %

of revenue is lost each year by organizations to occupational fraud, according to Certified Fraud Examiners; 43% of frauds are detected by a tip.

Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE)Occupational Fraud 2024: A Report to the Nations, 2024

How we tailor it to you

Your wording, departments, figures and photos are built into the challenges and cinematic sequences, to the letter. The look follows your brand guidelines. Teams are formed on the spot or based on your organisation chart. The session report is delivered to you after the event.

The sources of this programme

Every game, measure and reminder in this programme builds on published research. The facilitator cites it in the debriefs, and you can check every reference.

  1. Delmas, M. A., & Burbano, V. C. (2011). The drivers of greenwashing. California Management Review, 54(1), 64-87. 10.1525/cmr.2011.54.1.64
  2. Lyon, T. P., & Montgomery, A. W. (2015). The means and end of greenwash. Organization & Environment, 28(2), 223-249. 10.1177/1086026615575332
  3. Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don't know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932-968. 10.1177/0149206311436079
  4. Glavas, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and organizational psychology: An integrative review. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 144. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00144
  5. Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2015). The value of corporate culture. Journal of Financial Economics, 117(1), 60-76. 10.1016/j.jfineco.2014.05.010
  6. Grant, A. M., Dutton, J. E., & Rosso, B. D. (2008). Giving commitment: Employee support programs and the prosocial sensemaking process. Academy of Management Journal, 51(5), 898-918. 10.5465/amj.2008.34789652
  7. Bode, C., Singh, J., & Rogan, M. (2015). Corporate social initiatives and employee retention. Organization Science, 26(6), 1702-1720. 10.1287/orsc.2015.1006
  8. Kristofferson, K., White, K., & Peloza, J. (2014). The nature of slacktivism: How the social observability of an initial act of token support affects subsequent prosocial action. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(6), 1149-1166. 10.1086/674137
  9. Rupp, D. E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R. V., & Williams, C. A. (2006). Employee reactions to corporate social responsibility: an organizational justice framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 537-543. 10.1002/job.380
The foundations shared by all our programmes (19 references)

The mechanics of our sessions: team play, the debrief, the before-and-after measure, spaced reminders.

  1. Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309-317. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
  2. Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005). A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 273-291. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S027249440500054X
  3. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239-260. 10.1080/13504620220145401
  4. Sheeran, P., & Webb, T. L. (2016). The intention–behavior gap. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(9), 503-518. 10.1111/spc3.12265
  5. Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 14-25. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494406000909
  6. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015-1026. 10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015
  7. Truelove, H. B., Carrico, A. R., Weber, E. U., Raimi, K. T., & Vandenbergh, M. P. (2014). Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and theoretical framework. Global Environmental Change, 29, 127-138. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.09.004
  8. Clayton, S., & Karazsia, B. T. (2020). Development and validation of a measure of climate change anxiety. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 69, 101434. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494419307145
  9. Hickman, C., Marks, E., Pihkala, P., Clayton, S., Lewandowski, R. E., Mayall, E. E., et al. (2021). Climate anxiety in children and young people and their beliefs about government responses to climate change: A global survey. The Lancet Planetary Health, 5(12), e863-e873. www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00278-3/fulltext
  10. Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don't know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932-968. 10.1177/0149206311436079
  11. Glavas, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and organizational psychology: An integrative review. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 144. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00144
  12. République tunisienne (2018). Loi n° 2018-35 du 11 juin 2018, relative à la responsabilité sociétale des entreprises. Journal officiel de la République tunisienne, n° 2018-049 (texte légal). www.legislation.tn/fr/detailtexte/Loi-num-2018-35-du-11-06-2018-jort-2018-049__2018049000351
  13. République tunisienne (2025). Contribution déterminée au niveau national (CDN 3.0), soumise à la CCNUCC (rapport). unfccc.int/sites/default/files/2026-04/Document%20CDN3.0%20-version%20Finale.pdf
  14. Commission européenne (2011). Responsabilité sociale des entreprises : une nouvelle stratégie de l'UE pour la période 2011-2014, COM(2011) 681 (rapport). www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/com/com_com(2011)0681_/com_com(2011)0681_en.pdf
  15. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69-119. 10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1
  16. Tannenbaum, S. I., & Cerasoli, C. P. (2013). Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 55(1), 231-245. 10.1177/0018720812448394
  17. Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1993). Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus. JPSP, 64(2), 243-256. 10.1037/0022-3514.64.2.243
  18. Galton, F. (1907). Vox populi. Nature, 75, 450-451. 10.1038/075450a0
  19. Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer-based simulation games. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 489-528. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01190.x

Before you book

What is digital team building?

A team building session in which teams play challenges on participants' phones while a big screen shows the running order, the scores and the cinematic sequences. A facilitator runs the room from start to finish. Everything happens in person.

Do we need to install an app?

No. Participants scan a QR code and play in their phone's browser. No account, no password, no installation. It works on iPhone and Android.

Is there a limit on the number of participants?

No. The platform adapts to your headcount, from a small team to the whole company, in one or several rooms.

Demo

See “Anchor the brand image” in action.

Thirty minutes on your premises. You play a challenge and see the report at the end.

Request a demo