An answer requires exploring the ways in which calls for 'dialogue' of
'cooperation' have masked attempts to manipulate public debates; to
silence or neutralize critics; and to create an image of
socially-concerned business.
Knowledge of corporate PR strategies may help activists and concerned
citizens to recognize manipulative strategies and distinguish them from
industry behavior that is truly indicative of change, and thus be in a
better position to counter such strategies. To be in a better position to resist corporate attemps to manipulate
public debate and engeneer consent, corporate accountability activists
need to learn how better to distinguish between marketing -selling a
product- and corporate relations - selling industry views (although
manipulation is key to both kinds of activities). 'PR literacy' can be
increased by reading PR textbooks (in particular, glossaries and
sections on issues management and sponsorship) and investigative work
on corporate PR strategies. Spaces for democratic decision-making can
be recovered in various ways:
Trying to limit opportunities for industry to gather information on activist plans
For instance, activists should ask journalists and others interviewing
them about their funding sources and request to see copies of their
publications before giving interviews. If they do enter into
discussions with industry, they should try to avoid giving away
strategic information about their financial and human resources and
action plans; they should however, loudly and clearly voice their
concerns about what they regard as the public issue.
Unveiling hidden PR practices
Action groups could set up public data banks on persons involved in
'two-step-communication' (the use of third parties) 'front
organizations' and on corporate-instituted 'grass root organizations'.
They could try to expose publicly the most influential or
consciously-manipulative persons or organizations through their own
publications and, if possible, through other media. They could
institute an annual competition for the best 'corporate camouflage' of
the year (similar toe existing awards for the 'top polluter, for
instance). Legislation requiring politicians, government officials and
health professionals receiving industry funds to declare that they are
doing so could increase transparency in public debates. Given PR
practioners' vital role in engineering consent to anti-social
business practices, action groups could attempt to expose PR
practitioners' violations of the various voluntary codes of conduct
instituted by major professional PR associations such as the Public
Relations Society of America or the International Public Relation
Association.
Resisting suppression of public issues
The culture of industry secrecy, mechanisms of censorship and silencing
need to be seriously addressed. Health Action International, for
example, is currently co-organizing a campaign for public access to
information underlying decisions giving market approval for new
medicinal drugs in Europe. New coalitions are needed to work for
national Freedom of Information Acts, and against structural censorship
in the media. Groups should do all they can to expose and resist
industry attempts to silence critics.
Trying not to be used to enhance the image of an industry
To prevent, or at least limit, being used to enhance a corporate image,
professional associations and action groups should continue discussing
all these issues among themselves and establish clear policies on
funding. There is a need to explore the long-term structural
consequences of NGOs and social and research institutions replacing
dwindling public funds with industry sponsorships, which they are under
pressure to do. Organizations with a high public standing, such as UN
agencies and church organizations, should be particularly careful not to
let themselves be used for image transfer or to enhance the legitimacy
of a criticized company.
Resisting corporate attempts to manipulate public debate
Ideally, this encompasses a dual strategy: publicly exposing attempts
to silence, delay, divert or fudge, on the other hand: while at the
same time, developing and publicizing other analysis and alternative
visions, on the other. Given their limited financial resources and
human-power, however, action groups often have to decide between these
two strategies. Yet greater exchange and new coalitions between
industry critics from different movements - consumer, health,
environmental, democratic media, social justice and women's movements,
for instance - may conserve institutional resources.
Engineering of Consent is focusing on the ongoing baby-milk campaign
and the counter-strategies developed by Nestlé since the seventies. The
Cornerhouse briefing is dealing with: Corporate PR, The Art of
Camouflage and Deception, Issues Management, Intelligence Gathering and
Assessments, Image Management, Suppression of Public Issues, PR
Laundering, Manipulating the Public Debate.
The Engineering of Consent, Uncovering Corporate PR can be ordered at The Cornerhouse by email: cornerhouse@gn.apc.org