Coutts’ reputation committee has destroyed its own reputation 

Nigel Farage has been cancelled by his bank because their reputation risk committee doesn’t approve of his political views and has branded him a ‘chancer’ and ‘grifter’. This matters to him because, having been cancelled by one bank, it is almost impossible to get an account with another – you are obliged upon opening a new account to reveal if you have ever been turned down or thrown out of a bank before. 

Reputation risk has become all the rage in recent years as companies, governments and individuals scramble to protect themselves from the fate suffered by trial by media and powerful regulators. PR firms and management consultancies charge high fees to advise people how to avoid the ‘Ratner moment’ or the fate of Bud Light where poor judgment wreaks havoc and destroys valuable businesses. 

I advise many charities, companies, a leading public school, a major defence firm and celebrities on protecting their hard-earned reputations. The work is important because in every single case the aim is to ensure credit is given where credit is due, and that everyone has the reputation they deserve. It has nothing to do with PR and spin. Indeed, believing that PR is the answer to managing a reputation is in itself a red flag and a risk. 

NatWest and Coutts have jumped on the reputation bandwagon but fundamentally misunderstood what reputation is and how it works. The minutes of their ‘wealth reputation risk committee’, revealed in Farage’s data access request, reveals not only an organisation in the grip of trendy woke ideology, but no clue about its own reputation and how to manage it.  

Reputations are complex, hard-earned and take time to build. They are based not on what you say but what you do. Those reputations that stand the test of time are based on solid diligent focus on doing your job and doing it well. In Coutts’ and NatWest’s case that is all about providing decent banking services. 

What you don’t do is fall for trendy ideology or partisan political views, and use ‘reputation’ as a cover to promote contested causes because your CEO is desperate to signal how right-on she is to her chums at Chelsea dinner parties. 

A reputation can evaporate in an instant and in NatWest’s case the damage may already be too late. Hundreds if not thousands of cases are now emerging of the bank’s scant regard for its customers. My friend Alexandra Tolstoy, whom I also represent, a single mother of three, has been cancelled by them too in the most callous manner, with no possible justification other than her link with a Russian partner she has not seen for years. 

The bank remains part-owned by the taxpayer thanks to a huge bailout in 2008, and therefore we all have an interest in how it manages itself. I offer, for free, some advice to Dame Alison Rose, NatWest’s CEO.  

Firstly, you must understand what you are for, who are your customers, and who else matters for your ability to operate. In NatWest’s case, this is account holders, shareholders and regulators. And you must ensure you meet their expectations. This means good service, integrity and competent banking. It doesn’t mean taking sides on Brexit – that’s for the electorate to decide. And it doesn’t mean wading into the gender wars or other causes of your choosing. 

Secondly, ensure that what you do is matched by what you say. If your company brand promises excellent customer service and doesn’t deliver, then you can predict reputational trouble. BA has discovered this to its cost. If you demand people lock down and then throw parties, you are done for, as Boris discovered. The front page of Coutts’ website states ‘Modern banking underpinned by a renowned tradition of service.’ This tradition of service rings hollow when you are caught cancelling customers.

NatWest needs to find a new CEO, a new leadership team, and fire its self-destructive reputational risk committee. Otherwise, it is not fit for purpose, will haemorrhage customers, and may well lose its banking licence.