This assignment requires students to synthesize and integrate the scholarly and professional litera

W. TIMOTHY COOMBS AND SHERRY J. HOLLADAY

PUBLIC RELATIONS
IN SOCIETY SECOND

EDITION

It’s
Not
Just

It’s Not Just PR
COOMBS AND HOLLADAY

PUBLIC RELATIONS IN SOCIETY

PUBLIC RELATIONS
IN SOCIETY SECOND

EDITION

It’s
Not
Just

Whether one sees it as unwelcome, underappreciated, or unnoticed, public relations
has an important infl uence on modern society. In the second edition of their award-
winning book, W. Timothy Coombs and Sherry J. Holladay provide a broad and
thorough look at the fi eld of public relations in the world today and assess its
impact on society’s values, knowledge, and perceptions.

The authors show how public relations aff ects society – both positively and
negatively – and use a range of global, contemporary examples from multinational
corporations through to the non-profi t sector to prove their point. The authors have
thoroughly revised and updated the book with discussion of new issues, including
the search within the profession for a defi nition of PR; the role and limitations of
social media; the emergence of issues management; how private politics is shaping
corporate behavior; and the rise of global activism and the complications of working
in a global world. The authors also provide a nuanced and balanced discussion of
ethical concerns for professionals in the fi eld that doesn’t rely on oversimplifi cation
of the issues. Well organized and clearly written by two leading scholars, this is a
must-read for students and professionals in strategic communication.

W. Timothy Coombs and Sherry J. Holladay are Professors in the Nicholson
School of Communication at the University of Central Florida. They are co-authors
of Managing Corporate Social Responsibility (Wiley Blackwell, 2011) and PR Strategy
and Application (Wiley Blackwell, 2009), and co-editors of The Handbook of Crisis
Communication (Wiley Blackwell, 2010).

ISBN 978-1-118-55400-5

“Concise and thought-provoking examination about ‘what counts’ as public relations
and the fi eld’s impact on society; an excellent discussion primer about the issues
facing the profession today and in the foreseeable future.”

Michael J. Palenchar, University of Tennessee

“This is an engaging introduction to PR. I like its quick overviews of key authors, ideas,
and debates, its easy style, but, most of all, that it makes the reader think.”

Magda Pieczka, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh

SECOND EDITION

It’s Not Just PR

For Megan, Molly, Ben, Martha, Matthew, and Brandon
who are the future.

About the Authors

W. Timothy Coombs is Professor in the Nicholson School of Communi­
cation at the University of Central Florida. His books include the award­
winning Ongoing Crisis Communication (2007) and Code Red in the Boardroom
(2006). With Sherry J. Holladay, he is co­author of Managing Corporate
Social Responsibility (Wiley Blackwell, 2011) and PR Strategy and Application
(Wiley Blackwell, 2009) and co­editor of The Handbook of Crisis Communi­
cation (Wiley Blackwell, 2010). He has worked with consulting firms in
the U.S. and Europe on ways to improve crisis communication efforts for
their clients.

Sherry J. Holladay is Professor in the Nicholson School of Communi­
cation at the University of Central Florida. She teaches courses in public
relations and corporate communication and her research interests include
corporate social responsibility, crisis communication, reputation manage­
ment, activism, and stakeholder relations. Her work appears in the Journal
of Public Relations Research, Public Relations Review, Management Communi­
cation Quarterly, Journal of Communication Management, and International
Journal of Strategic Communication.

It’s Not Just PR
Public Relations in Society

Second Edition

W. Timothy Coombs
Sherry J. Holladay

This second edition first published 2014
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Edition history: Blackwell Publishing Ltd (1e, 2007)

Registered Office
John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

Editorial Offices
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148­5020, USA
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK
The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services, and for information
about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please
see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley­blackwell.

The right of W. Timothy Coombs and Sherry J. Holladay to be identified as the authors
of this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that
appears in print may not be available in electronic books.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as
trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names,
service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The
publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author(s) have
used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties
with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically
disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.
It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional
services and neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for damages arising
herefrom. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of
a competent professional should be sought.

Library of Congress Cataloging­in­Publication data is available for this book.

9781118554005 (paperback)

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Cover image © noolwlee / Shutterstock
Cover design by Simon Levy

Set in 11/13.5pt Dante by SPi Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India

1 2014

Contents

Acknowledgments vi

Introduction to the Second Edition 1

1 Does Society Need Public Relations? 4

2 Ethical Implications of Public Relations 36

3 Who Practices Public Relations? 60

4 Public Relations Influences Society 90

5 Shifting the View of Public Relations 123

References 141

Index 159

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Elizabeth Swayze and Wiley Blackwell for their
support of this book over the years. The book was a bit of a risk given
its topic and format but it seems to have worked for all involved, including
its readers. We also would like to thank Allison Kostka and Julia Kirk for
their patience and help with the revisions, and to thank those reviewers
who provided feedback to the revision plan. It takes a team to publish a
book, and we are happy to be part of such a great team.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society, Second Edition.
W. Timothy Coombs and Sherry J. Holladay.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Introduction to the Second Edition

When we had the opportunity to write the first edition of this book, our
task of developing a title was challenging due to the book’s unconven­
tional approach and topic coverage. But the title, It’s Not Just PR: Public
Relations in Society, seemed to capture our ideas quite well. The title was
designed to reflect the frustration of many academics and practitioners
who feel the term “public relations” is trivialized, misunderstood, and
misused. Its colloquial use tends to be tainted with negative connotations
as critics lament the substitution of “public relations” for facts, substance,
or the “real story.”

We welcome our opportunity to broaden readers’ understanding of
public relations by offering a perspective designed to “complicate” public
relations by addressing corporate uses and limitations of a corporate­
centric view of public relations but also presenting alternative views and
analyses to expand our thinking about “what counts” as public relations.

Public relations activities continue to be equated with distortion,
manipulation, and stonewalling, and depicted in negative ways. The pub­
lic’s dependence on the media, coupled with the media’s misuse of the
term, translates into a lack of understanding of the practice. Unfortunately,
there are far too many incidents where corporations have used public rela­
tions in unethical ways to pursue economic self­interests at the expense of
the public interest, thereby reinforcing its tainted image. In spite of reports

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

2

of activist actions that positively impact on society, such as those of
Greenpeace, Labour Behind the Label, UK Uncut, and PETA, the public
is unlikely to identify these as examples of public relations. Negative con­
notations of public relations may lead people to wonder if society would
be better off without public relations.

Consistent with the vision of the first edition, the second edition of
It’s Not Just PR invites readers to develop a more complex and complete
understanding of the practice of public relations. Societal developments,
including the increasing effects of globalization and communication tech­
nologies on business and activist practices, as well as events that spotlight
both ethical and unethical uses of public relations, are well represented in
this new edition. New extended examples that illustrate the use and grow­
ing importance of social media as a communication tool are included.

This second edition of It’s Not Just PR should help readers understand
why society benefits from the practice of public relations. The new edition
expands our examination of the role of power in public relations and the
use of public relations by non­corporate entities. At the time the first
edition was written, the concern with power along with critical and post­
modern approaches to public relations were underdeveloped, especially
within the United States. We are proud to have helped introduce readers
to these perspectives and are gratified with the positive responses we
receive to our presentation of these ideas. In many ways we were well
ahead of the curve in exploring these ideas, which is not always the most
comfortable position for publishers. We hope that the increasing interest
in power and activism, along with greater acceptance of more “radical”
ideas in the published academic literature, confirms the value of our
vision that guided the development of the first edition.

This edition examines both the microlevel and macrolevel (societal,
global) processes and outcomes of the practice of public relations. The
microlevel examines what defines and constitutes public relations. We
focus on the relationship between organizations and their stakeholders,
people who are affected by and can affect the organizations. The issue of
power is central to our exploration of the relationship dynamic. People
often think of corporations, especially multinational corporations, as
very powerful compared to average citizens. Sources of power for stake­
holders and organizations are discussed with an eye to demonstrating
stakeholders’ potential for influence on corporations and society. As sug­
gested by stakeholder theory, stakeholders can develop power resources

Introduction

3

to participate in the marketplace of ideas. However, in most cases the
power advantage lies with the corporation. The interdependence between
organizations and stakeholders is central to our appreciation of power
dynamics and ethical practices in the web of relationships.

The macrolevel focuses on how public relations can impact society by
influencing laws, behaviors, and values. A macrolevel examination exposes
limitations of a purely corporate­centric approach to public relations. We
address how the practice of public relations extends well beyond corpora­
tions and national borders and must be considered within the global con­
text. Global public relations as a form of transnational activism and public
diplomacy has been growing. Its expansion and effectiveness has been
aided by the Internet. Case studies illuminate how activists, including
PVOs, use the Internet and public relations practices to influence corpo­
rate and governmental practices around the world.

We are not so naive as to believe that public relations is not used to
pursue or to obscure courses of action that harm stakeholders and society.
Public relations is not all­powerful, exclusively corporate, or always harm­
ful to stakeholders and society. Nor is it only used by activists and non­
profits to benefit stakeholders and society. The reality is that public
relations is a complex mix of all these factors and more. Our goal is to
complicate your thinking about public relations by peering behind the
misuses of the term to examine its role in society. In the end, we hope this
book demonstrates how public relations does have a place in and can be
beneficial to society.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society, Second Edition.
W. Timothy Coombs and Sherry J. Holladay.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Does Society Need Public Relations?

1

Conceptualizations of what constitutes public relations cast a wide net
and demonstrate a lack of consistency. And when something is labeled by
the media as a “public relations” action, it seems to be with a negative,
disparaging tone (e.g., “mere public relations,” “PR spin,” “PR hype,” “PR
rhetoric,” or “a public relations stunt”). As described in the media, virtu­
ally anything that a corporation or its representatives does may be labeled
as “public relations” and treated with suspicion. Activities as diverse as
attempts to explain a negative financial report, launch a new product,
encourage employees to volunteer in the community, and donate money
to a charity, have all been identified as “public relations.” What, then, is not
public relations?

Critics of public relations tend to focus attention on what they call
public relations efforts involved in defending the most obvious and
egregious violations of the public trust: cover­ups (such as Enron, Tyco,
and HealthSouth), CEO/CFO scandals, the spokesperson who deceives
the public in order to defend the actions of the organization, and illegal
dumping of toxic chemicals. Attempts to minimize or conceal these
scandalous actions often are cast as “PR ploys” designed to deflect the
negative impacts of questionable corporate actions including suspicious
financial reports, management misbehavior, dubious environmental

Does Society Need Public Relations?

5

records, or human rights violations. Public relations becomes equated
with stonewalling. Stonewalling is the attempt to hide information or
delay its release. The public relations practitioner becomes a barrier to the
truth, not the bringer of truth.

Scandals attract attention. Good deeds and the mundane are less likely
to generate media exposure. What go unrecognized are the more com­
monplace and typical PR efforts that characterize the daily existence of
organizations (e.g., employee communication, community relations,
etc.). Examples include announcements about promotions, recognition
of awards won by an organization, or efforts to support local charities or
community groups. These more accurately characterize the PR efforts
of most organizations. Very few PR practitioners are ever in the position
of managing major scandals like those generated by News Corporation,
Lance Armstrong, and Olympus. Public relations is the subject of heavy
criticism in a number of cultures. Upon learning of these criticisms, peo­
ple are often left to ponder if society needs public relations. Without it,
would society be better or worse off ? Both professionals and academics
have tried to defend the practice. Often the defense attributes to public
relations very lofty pursuits, which seem rather unrealistic. By reviewing
the good and bad of public relations we can better appreciate its place
in society.

The first half of the chapter examines the negative effects of public
relations. We start by reviewing media portrayals. Most people learn
about the practice of public relations through media coverage of the field
and use of the term. Hence, the media help to construct people’s percep­
tions. Public relations has some individual vocal critics as well. We exam­
ine the main critics and the reasons for their disdain. As a corollary, some
of the popular press books on public relations are surveyed. Public rela­
tions can be its own worst enemy by emphasizing the aspects most
despised by its critics.

The second half of the chapter considers the utility of public rela­
tions in a democratic society. Practitioner and academic defenses of
public relations are presented. The chapter ends by offering our concep­
tualization of public relations. We provide a definition of public relations
that highlights the role of communication, relationship management,
and mutual influence between organizations and stakeholders. This
provides the basis for understanding where public relations fits into the
needs of society.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

6

Media Use and the Term “PR”

In late 2012, Internet reports began to appear that Instagram, an applica­
tion for sharing digital images, intended to sell any photos flowing through
the application to advertisers. In other words, Instagram could sell any of
your pictures that you posted through Instagram without your consent
or compensation. The CEO of Instagram, Keven Systrom, quickly began
blogging and backtracking on the idea as people began canceling or
threatening to cancel their accounts. One media outlet characterized the
CEO’s response as “more spin than anything else” (Adhikari 2012). In
December of 2012, the Armed Forces of the Philippines released a state­
ment saying the organization would celebrate National Human Rights
Consciousness Week with a variety of events designed to show their com­
mitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A news story,
critical of the Armed Forces, said the statement “is pure and simple PR
spin” (Legaspi 2012, para. 10). These examples illustrate how the media
often report on public relations as actions that are style with no substance
or even a type of deception.

Although we frequently hear people refer to public relations, the
practice of public relations is not well understood. The media may be at
least in part to blame for the public’s lack of understanding because they
tend to use the term “public relations” inaccurately and to focus on
some types of PR practice while ignoring others. It is important to con­
sider seriously these portrayals of the uses of public relations and its
professionals because they shape people’s perceptions of what PR is,
when it might be used, and what PR professionals do. The unfortunate
part is that, as is shown by systematic research into media portrayals of
public relations, comparing them with the reality, these portrayals are
negative (for instance, they equate PR with deception) as well as quite
limited. They fail to capture the full range of PR activities and focus
mainly on publicity functions. Additionally, the media often label com­
munications and actions as “mere PR” when they really are not what PR
professionals would consider public relations. Overall, the media’s use
of the term “PR” seems fraught with negative connotations. Empirical
research has established the extent of distortion in these portrayals. In
1988, Bishop discovered PR was equated with “publicity” in the newspa­
per coverage in a sample of three newspapers. Keenan (1996) found

Does Society Need Public Relations?

7

nearly half of the references to public relations in major network media
coverage reflected the press agency model. Public relations was por­
trayed as nothing more than trying to generate media coverage. Julie
Henderson (1998) examined the use of the term “public relations” in
100 popular press media articles. In about 5 percent of them the term
PR was used accurately, in ways that would be acceptable to the Public
Relations Society of America (PRSA), the professional association. This
is problematic because the media are a key source of cues for building
reputations when people have little interaction with an entity (Dowling
2002). Most people learn about public relations from the media, not
from practitioners.

The problem of limited or inaccurate conceptions of public relations
is compounded by the negative use of the term itself, as in the Instagram
example, and by negative comments about PR. Henderson’s (1998)
research found that in only about 7 percent of the articles could the
references to PR be considered “positive.” Spicer (1993) found the
majority (83 percent) of references to public relations in print media
were negative.

Scrimger and Richards (2003) explored Canadian journalists’ uses
of  metaphors of violent conflict to describe communication between
organizations and the public. They examined articles where journalists
used the term “public relations battle” or “public relations war.” They
found these phrases were invoked even though the reality of the situa­
tion often did not justify the use of inflammatory metaphors. In more
than one­half of the cases (55 percent), the terms were used in the first
paragraph of the story. In all cases the choice of word was the journal­
ists’; no sources were directly quoted as using either of the two phrases.
Thus, their research demonstrates that journalists are prone to frame
situations as “violent confrontations” (PR wars or battles) in spite of
the fact that the participants do not describe their situations in this way.
The media coverage offered a conflict frame even though there could be
areas of consensus or agreement between the parties. These types of
portrayals could lead the public to misperceive typical PR practices as
involving disputes rather than collaboration. Research consistently
demonstrates a negative portrayal of public relations and/or use of the
term in the media. Media treatment of public relations is an indirect
form of criticism. Others have been more direct in their disdain for
public relations.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

8

Criticisms of Public Relations

It is not difficult to locate critiques of the practice of public relations.
Critics of public relations are numerous, vocal, and profess allegiance to a
variety of disciplines. Critiques can be found in popular press books and in
journalistic discussions of public relations. These sources are now
reviewed to understand why public relations is considered by some to be
a pariah in society.

Popular press attacks on public relations

Two popular press books stand out for casting a critical eye on the practice
of public relations: PR! A Social History of Spin (1996) and Toxic Sludge is
Good for You! (1995). Popular press books, in contrast to more academically
oriented books, are aimed at a wide, general audience. It is noteworthy
that there is little agreement in them on what constitutes public relations.
These popular press books reflect an attitude that seemed particularly
prevalent in the 1990s, a time that corresponds to the growth of corporate
power. An underlying theme in both books mentioned above is that large
corporations are dangerous and that public relations is one of the tenta­
cles on this dangerous octopus.

Often popular press books present examples from the history of public
relations, select dramatic illustrations to reveal its “unethical nature,” and
focus on how contemporary businesses (or governments) use PR to pur­
sue economic objectives at the expense of the public interest. The exam­
ples serve to represent the whole. Synecdoche is used as an argument. If
part of what public relations does is bad, then everything public relations
does is bad. A part comes to represent the whole.

Stuart Ewen’s PR! A Social History of Spin, recounts the development of
the practice of public relations by focusing on the commonly recognized
pioneers of public relations, Edward Bernays (the “father of public rela­
tions”) and Ivy Lee, and identifies scholars who influenced their thinking
(e.g., Walter Lippmann, Gustave Le Bon). He also contextualized various
public relations efforts conducted by private industry and government within
various historical, economic, social, and corporate periods. Ewen writes that
his book focuses on “the social and historical roots that would explain the
boundless role of public relations in our world” (1996: 3). Interestingly, Ewen

Does Society Need Public Relations?

9

does not define a key word in his book’s title, “spin” (nor does it appear in the
index), perhaps because he assumes the savvy reader will assume that PR
and spin are synonymous. (From the title alone, how is the prospective
reader supposed to know that this is a book about public relations?)

Near the end of the book Ewen writes that public relations is designed
to “circumvent critical thinking” and is “rarely intended to inform the
population about the intricacies of an issue” (p. 412). He expresses con­
cern over the fact that the techniques used have become increasingly
“sophisticated” and “pervasive” (p. 409). A theme of this work is that PR
poses a real threat to democracy because it undermines open, public dis­
course. Powerful corporations can hire skilled PR professionals and gain
access to the media in order to advocate their policies and points of view;
they thus exercise enormous influence, which the average person cannot
match. He suggests that the general public is untrained and ill­informed in
sophisticated PR methods, and not equipped to assess PR output.

In the final section of his book he advocates education in media literacy
in order to equip citizens with the analytical tools needed to critically ana­
lyze media messages and images; this education should begin in primary
grades. We believe that media literacy is a laudable goal, and people
should be discriminating consumers of mediated messages. However,
public relations is not the sole force responsible for its need. Ewen’s book
reflects a distrust of corporations: people must be wary of the deceptions
enacted by corporations. And, as he says, public relations is a perfect
mechanism for corporate deception.

John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton’s Toxic Sludge is Good for You! Lies,
Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry, offers a highly critical view of
PR which focuses on how it is used to deceive the public. Their goal is to
enlighten the masses: “We want the public at large to recognize the skilled
propagandists of industry and government who are affecting public opin­
ion and determining public policies, while remaining (they hope) out of
public view” (p. 16). They argue that the democratic process has been
railroaded through the use of PR techniques. When we think corpora­
tions are doing something that is socially responsible or for the good of
the public, we had better look more closely because we are merely being
fooled. We should remain suspicious and scrutinize their PR actions to
unmask what corporations gain from seemingly noble acts.

The book is comprised of interesting, lively­written case studies
designed to reveal PR’s role in influencing public opinion and policy.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

10

Examples range from the tobacco industry’s attempt to get women to
smoke to phony grassroots movements (astroturf ) to McDonald’s part­
nering with the Environmental Defense Fund, from the Environmental
Protection Agency’s involvement in getting communities to accept sludge
farming to Hill and Knowlton’s role in securing US citizens’ support for
the Persian Gulf War, and to Burson­Marsteller’s part in securing support
for NAFTA. Again, PR is presented as an all­powerful tool used by power­
ful interests (corporations, governments) to gain and maintain their power.

A recurring criticism in Toxic Sludge is Good for You! is that PR efforts are
not easily recognized as such, which makes PR even more insidious and
powerful. Advertising (usually) can be recognized as advertising and is
commonly understood to represent something that a corporation has
paid for and therefore invites critical examination. However, they argue,
PR practices commonly include the coopting of journalists who, owing to
financial and personnel cuts in their news organizations, have become
dependent on PR practitioners for pitches for news stories, use of video
news releases, and basic access to information in order to meet deadlines.
This results in journalists producing news stories that actually benefit cor­
porations rather than the public (meeting the public’s “need to know”).
What we think is “news” (because it appears in a newspaper or other
media outlet) is really a pitch for corporate interests.

Stauber and Rampton also question the motives of organizations that
partner with activist groups in efforts to appear socially responsible. While
we might think that working with such groups is a sign of concern for the
activists’ issues, the corporations are the ones that actually benefit from
the alliances. The authors claim that these alliances are used to benefit
corporate interests and prevent the groups from interfering with business
operations. By “coopting” the activists, corporations are able to gather
information from the groups and “know the enemy.” These alliances are
designed to improve the image of the corporation and allow them to con­
tinue business as usual without truly addressing the contentious issues.

At times the authors seem ambivalent about the specific techniques
and uses of public relations:

The PR professionals who work to manage our opinions and emotions are
not doing this because they are evil, but because PR is a financially reward­
ing business. From their viewpoint they are simply providing a service
to  their paying customers. If PR poses a threat to democratic values,

Does Society Need Public Relations?

11

it  is  ultimately a manifestation of the deeper contradiction in corporate
America – the gap between our dream of a governance “by the people, for
the people” and the reality of a society deeply divided by unequal access to
wealth and power (p. 203).

In contrast, they later write,

Many PR practitioners are engaged in promotional and publicity campaigns
for clinics, schools and deserving charities that benefit the public. The tech­
niques of public relations are not all inherently bad. Everyone at some time
uses their skills of persuasion to communicate ideas, to sell products, pro­
mote a point of view, or “schmooze” socially. But positive uses of PR do
not in any way mitigate the undemocratic power of the multi­billion dollar
PR industry to manipulate and propagandize on behalf of wealthy special
interests, dominating debate, discussion and decision (p. 205).

However, they do note that

Citizens and individual PR practitioners can use ethical public relations
techniques to right social wrongs, clean up the environment, promote
minority rights, protect working people and make their communities bet­
ter. But we consider it an illusion to imagine that PR is a “neutral” technol­
ogy that can simply be adopted uncritically to achieve socially responsible
ends (pp. 205–6).

This last sentence seems to endorse the idea that the practice of PR is
inherently corrupt.

While Stauber and Rampton admit they do not offer a “magic solution”
to the problem posed by PR in society, they hope that their book will help
people to “first, learn to recognize the influence of PR in your life; second,
seek out alternative sources of information; third, become personally
involved in local efforts to directly address important issues at the com­
munity level” (p. 204).

A film version of the book is available: Toxic Sludge is Good for You:
The  Public Relations Industry Unspun. Here is the creator’s description
of the film:

While advertising is the visible component of the corporate system, per­
haps even more important and pervasive is its invisible partner, the public

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

12

relations industry. This video illuminates this hidden sphere of our culture
and examines the way in which the management of “the public mind” has
become central to how our democracy is controlled by political and eco­
nomic elites. Toxic Sludge Is Good For You illustrates how much of what we
think of as independent, unbiased news and information has its origins in
the boardrooms of the public relations companies.

Using interviews, the film repeats the primary points of the book. There
also are interviews with former public relations professionals. These
repentant individuals reveal the manipulative secrets of their trade. The
focus remains on people’s ignorance of public relations’ role in creating
the news through publicity efforts and how willing media representatives
can be co­opted. Once more there is an underlying theme of the danger­
ous corporation. When non­corporate entities use public relations it is
acceptable, but those corporations are sinister.

Stauber and Rampton are active in PR Watch, a quarterly publication
from the Center for Media and Democracy that focuses on revealing
the “dark side” of public relations. It bills itself as specializing in “blow­
ing the lid off of the multi­billion dollar propaganda­for­hire industry”
(PR Watch, 2005). The idea is that the newsletter, available free of
charge online, reveals to people how public relations manipulates the
news. By understanding the process, people will have a better chance
of resisting it.

But perhaps the most vociferous critics can be found among the ranks
of journalists. It is somewhat ironic that many historians trace the roots of
modern public relations back to the actions of (former) journalists
whose skills were purchased to benefit the interests of corporations. These
journalists are described as leaving their positions with newspapers
to  assist corporations in appeasing the public. Corporations perceived
that journalists possessed the skills needed to promote their organiza­
tions. Journalists’ technical competence in writing news releases was
coveted by corporations keen to defend themselves against public criticism
of their business practices. Robber barons, the early US industrialists,
were among the first to “corrupt” journalists. This was a major shift from
the “Public be damned” attitude expressed by railroad tycoon William
Vanderbilt and seemingly embraced by his brethren. The practice of
“working for” a particular client and representing partisan interests may
not sit well with journalists who embrace the journalistic ideal of the

Does Society Need Public Relations?

13

objective crusader and protector of the public trust. The image of the
“hired gun” of the corporation contrasts starkly with the idealized image
of the unbiased journalist.

Criticism of public relations is nothing new. In fact, criticism erupted as
soon as modern public relations began to be practiced by corporations in
the late 1800s and early 1900s. It is noteworthy that the early criticisms
sound remarkably similar to current criticisms. There has always been a
fear that public relations could be used to hide unwelcome information
and might subvert the accurate reporting of news.

Of course, critics note it is rather ironic that PR should be so frequently
misunderstood and accused of having an “image problem” when one
component of their role is to manage information, public opinion, and
corporate images. Critics seem to delight in pointing out the inability of
PR to manage its own reputation. The implication is that if the “image
masters” cannot successfully manage PR’s reputation, the critics must be
right! The practice of public relations must be so truly reprehensible that
even the “spinmeisters” cannot salvage it. Critics interpret the inability
of PR to elevate its reputation as further evidence of its inherent evil.

So what, exactly, drives the disparagement of the practice of PR? The
following section outlines common themes expressed in critiques of pub­
lic relations. This is followed by a few specific examples of what critical,
popular press books have said about public relations practices.

Common themes in critiques of public relations

1. Public relations has kept the public ignorant about what “really” goes on
in public relations.

The critical books are written and promoted as “exposés” on the PR
industry. They promise to reveal behind­the­scenes machinations that
will  shock and sicken us and expose PR practitioners as the snake oil
sales­people of our time. The public is portrayed as “duped” through the
maneuvers of PR professionals who use sophisticated techniques to “spin”
the truth. The public does not recognize PR efforts as being sponsored by
and serving the interests of corporations or governments. The public is
unaware of the nature and extent of PR and would be outraged “if only
they knew.” PR efforts are assumed to present lies, or at least distortions,
of the truth.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

14

Social media has amplified rather than eliminated concerns over public
ignorance of public relations practices. Supposedly social media and the
Internet create transparency by exposing what organizations and individ­
uals are doing (Gower 2006). In theory, organizations are more trans­
parent because social media and the Internet will reveal if anything is
being hidden (Coombs and Holladay 2010). (See Box  1.1: Overview of
Transparency for more on the topic.) Social media is fraught with efforts
to mask the identity of the communicator and to mislead stakeholders
through the use of front groups, astroturfing, sockpuppeting, editing
Wikipedia content, and buying social media.

Front groups purposefully obscure the source of a message to hide the
self­interests of the source. People hearing the message think the front
group is neutral rather than knowing the front group has direct stake in
the issue (Fitzpatrick and Palenchar 2006). Front groups, such the Center
for Consumer Freedom that fronts for restaurants and alcohol, are active
online. Social media also is used for astroturfing, efforts to artificially gen­
erate grassroots support for an issue. Various social media channels are
used to create the illusion there is strong support or opposition to an issue.
SourceWatch actively tries to expose front groups and astroturfing
through its website (Coombs and Holladay 2010).

Sockpuppeting involves creating a fake identity used to praise or to
support an organization or issue (Stone and Richtel 2007). We can term
this a front person. The front person can spread messages through
blogs, discussions groups, Twitter, Facebook, or any other social media.
As with front groups, the front person creates a false sense of support
for an organization or issue by hiding the self­interests of the source.
Some corporations and their public relations agencies have edited
Wikipedia entries beyond correcting factual errors to making the entries
more positive for an organization by removing accurate but negative
information from the entries. The Chartered Institute of Public
Relations (CIPR) from the UK argues that such editing is inappropriate
because it lacks transparency (Sebastian 2012). Organizations and indi­
viduals can buy Twitter followers by hiring sponsored tweets – people
who will send positive tweets for a price (Van Grove 2009). While the
identities are real, the messages are for sale and those reading the tweets
may have no idea of this fact. Again, it looks as though there is more
support for an organization or issue than really exists. Similarly, some
bloggers have been known to create favorable messages for a price.

Does Society Need Public Relations?

15

Box 1.1 Overview of Transparency

Transparency has become a corporate buzzword that both public
relations practitioners and academics have eagerly embraced (e.g.,
Karp 2010). The argument, made popular in the book The Naked
Corporation, is that organizations cannot hide anything from stake­
holders anymore. “Finally, in a world of instant communications,
whistleblowers, inquisitive media, and googling, citizens and com­
munities routinely put firms under the microscope” (Tapscott and
Ticoll 2003: xi). They argue new transparency is a function of the
Internet. Social media and other Internet communication channels
will expose any malfeasance by a corporation. Hence, organiza­
tions avoid questionable behavior because such actions will be dis­
covered and come back to haunt them. In short, the fear generated
by Internet­enhanced transparency becomes a form of ethical con­
straint on organizations (Tapscott and Ticoll 2003). Critics note it
is naive to put such faith in transparency (Christensen, Thyssen
and Morsing 2011; Coombs and Holladay 2010; Jahansoozi 2006).
Organizations can still hide some actions. Moreover, when ques­
tionable behavior is revealed the actions may attract little attention
and/or move few people to action. If few people learn about the
problematic behaviors or choose not to punish the organization for
the actions, there is no effect from transparency.

Where transparency matters for ethics is the disclosure of
sources. It is unethical for public relations practitioners to hide the
source of a message. When the source is hidden, those listening to
the message cannot properly evaluate the message because they do
not understand the biases of the source. Front groups purposely
obscure the source to hide the biases of those promoting a position
on an issue (Fitzpatrick and Palenchar, 2006). Another ethical
breach related to hiding sources is paying or bribing reporters to
place stories in the news media. The news media is supposed to be
a neutral source. When the news media runs a story that is positive
about an organization, the organization can benefit from that
favorable news coverage (Meijer 2004). That positive effect might
be lost if people knew the organization “bought” the story just as
it would buy advertising. Tsetsura and Kruckeberg (2013) have

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

16

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the U.S. created a regulation
forcing bloggers to reveal when they have received compensation for
products they discuss on their blogs (Fulton 2009). While social media
may help to expose when organizations or groups are being deceptive,
it provides many opportunities to cloak the true identity of those creat­
ing public relations messages.

2. Public relations cannot escape its wicked roots.

Early influences on the practice of public relations included writings on
psychology and persuasion. The origins of public relations can be traced
back to early writings concerning human behavior and the manipulation
of public opinion and behavior. Academic work on the nature and role of
persuasion portrayed humans as easily malleable, given the use of the
right techniques. The problem is that many of these writings seemed to
privilege the “elite” (wealthy, well educated), suggesting that the less edu­
cated could and should be influenced by those who knew what was best
for them. Within the context of contemporary society, the paternalistic
attitudes expressed in many of these works seem exploitive and do not
fully acknowledge the plethora of ethical concerns implicated in molding
behavior.

Critics often point to the seminal influences, noting how this line of
thinking corrupted early practitioners, and suggest that the origins con­
tinue to influence current practice. Public relations is tainted by the
early ideas that underlie its practice. After all, Joseph Goebbels, master­
mind of Nazi propaganda, claimed to be guided by a book entitled
Propaganda, authored by Edward Bernays, the “father of public
relations.”

examined media bribery on a global scale culminating in their
book Transparency, Public Relations and the Mass Media: Combating
Media Bribery Worldwide. The book contends that media hide the
influence of bribery (media opacity) from audiences to maintain a
false sense of unbiased media coverage. Once more lack of trans­
parency is unethical because it obscures the biases held by the true
source of a message.

Does Society Need Public Relations?

17

3. PR is to blame for the inordinate amount of power that corporations
(and other groups, governments, lobbying groups, etc.) can exercise.

These criticisms focus on how public relations has been used to further
the interests of these groups. Public relations efforts have been very suc­
cessful in securing power for them. Corporations and governments are
too powerful and public relations tactics are to blame. Corporations have
become bullies. PR is what allows organizations to operate as they please,
without interference from those who would question their practices. PR
has duped the public into accepting this state of affairs.

Wendell Potter (2010), former head of corporate communications for
the insurance company CIGNA, wrote a scathing indictment of the U.S.
public relations industry titled Deadly Spin: An Insurance Company Insider
Speaks out on How Corporate PR is Killing Health Care and Deceiving
Americans. After 25 years in public relations, Potter had a revelation that
he was representing the wrong side and decided to expose how PR had
been manipulating people. His emphasis was on the way public rela­
tions was used to prevent healthcare reform in the United States. Potter
noted much of public relations is ethical but that “PR tactics are also
used to create subversive front groups, discredit legitimate individuals
or organizations, spread false information, distort the truth, and instill
fear” (Potter 2010: 54). Potter, from his insider position, argued that gen­
erating fear caused people to support positions in healthcare that were
against their own interests. Moreover, he posited public relations practi­
tioners are experts in manipulating media coverage to support their
interests (Potter 2010).

Potter (2010) noted that health insurers, such as CIGNA, poured
money into public relations efforts to combat healthcare reform in order
to protect profits. He details how health insurers supported health main­
tenance organizations (HMOs) until they became less profitable. Then
the industry mounted an effort to convince people HMOs were the rea­
son for rising healthcare costs (an inaccuracy) and urged the move to
consumer­driven healthcare that required individuals to pay more of
their own healthcare costs. Potter has one chapter that outlines the
“playbook” used in healthcare public relations. It includes efforts to fund
research that will support your position, create a coalition and front
group, hire a major PR firm known for “public ‘deception,’” and create
a “duplicitous communications campaign” (Potter 2010: 223–24). Potter’s

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

18

view is that public relations is a practice that will do anything, including
concealing identities and distorting the truth, to achieve its objective.

David Miller and William Dinan, two sociologists, wrote a book titled
A Century of Spin: How Public Relations Became the Cutting Edge of Corporate
Power. While drawing heavily on material from the UK, Miller and Dinan
posit the use of public relations to advance corporate interests is global.
“The global PR industry is at the forefront of extending corporate power
by engaging in the front­line of the battle between ideas and finding ways
to put the interest of the corporation into action” (Miller and Dinan 2008:
124). Miller and Dinan use the term global PR industry in reference to
massive, multinational public relations consultancies/agencies such as
Weber Shandwick Worldwide and Ruder Finn Group. Their conclusion is
that public relations, by blindly advancing corporate interests, are under­
mining democracy. Reflecting neoliberalism, governments are there to
respond to the needs of powerful corporations, not other constituencies
(Miller and Dinan 2008).

Public relations is successful, in part, by being “mysterious.” They note
how it is difficult for people outside of public relations to name even one
of the major PR consultancies/agencies. Public relations is practiced in
obscurity. In fact it is argued that public relations prefers to work in secrecy
and often uses deception to hide their interests in order to “pursue their
objectives undetected” (Miller and Dinan 2008: 1). The primary strategy
of public relations is to manufacture compliance. Public relations practi­
tioners do not need to seek the support of stakeholders, merely to prevent
them from opposing corporate interests – create quiescence. They often
equate public relations with propaganda. Practitioners are willing to use
“degraded and deceptive communications” that ultimately harm society
(Miller and Dinan 2008: 2). Public relations is utilized by corporations “to
impose business interests on public policy and limit the responsiveness of
the political system to the preferences and opinions of the masses” (Miller
and Dinan 2008: 1). Overall, public relations is viewed as a practice
designed to operate in the shadows, willing to manipulate people, and
ultimately is harmful to society.

These criticisms seem to ignore how economic conditions and govern­
ment policies have led to the development of corporate power. What they
need to attack is the power of corporations to operate in the way that they
do, including what laws have made that possible, not the means used to
get them to the point where they can exercise that power.

Does Society Need Public Relations?

19

4. Public relations services are available to or work for those with “deep
pockets” and this undermines the democratic process.

Corporations use their seemingly unlimited economic resources to fight
for their own interests at the expense of the well­being of the general citi­
zenry and democracy itself. As described in no. 3, corporations are seen as
too powerful. The once­revered, democratic, public debate of ideas is a
myth in a world where public relations can sway public sentiment. This
suggests that PR itself is undemocratic: It can be used in undemocratic
ways for undemocratic ends.

Television portrayals of public relations practitioners also reinforce
the view that public relations benefits the rich at the expense of society.
In 2012, the ABC network launched the show “Scandal.” The show is
based on the life of Judy Smith, a famous Washington D.C. resident con­
sidered a PR maven and a crisis manager (Sneed 2012). Her firm, Smith &
Company, lists the following services: crisis management, media rela­
tions, litigation support, public affairs, and training (Practice Areas n.d.).
On the show, the firm hides clients from the media and law enforce­
ment, tampers with crime scenes, and uses torture to extract informa­
tion. The television portrayals of these practitioners reinforce the belief
that public relations is often used to benefit the elite at the expense of
society as a whole.

While individuals and groups representing divergent interests can use
PR techniques, the financial capabilities of corporations (or governments)
far outweigh what is available to the individuals. Access to public relations
is undemocratic, and this makes democracy impossible. The idea of the
democratic process in today’s society is a sham owing to the power of
public relations to work for the interests of corporations.

5. Public relations’ power can be curtailed, and democracy restored, if the
public is educated in how to resist public relations.

The public needs to be informed and educated about public relations in
order to resist its influence. People must be vigilant in separating public
relations ploys from the “truth.” The public can protect itself from the
influence of public relations and reclaim democracy. When corporations
win through PR efforts, the “public interest” loses.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

20

6. Public relations is only publicity.

The critics of public relations often treat it as publicity; they see the function
of PR as influencing media content. That is indeed part of public relations,
but often a small part. Television has reinforced this publicity orientation with
its “inside looks” into the public relations practice. In 2010, Kim Kardashian,
a reality television personality, produced a “documentary” about public rela­
tions titled “The SPINdustry.” The half­hour show featuring Command PR
then became an eight­episode reality program called “The Spin Crowd”
(Ciarallo 2010). The consistent use of “spin” in the titles reflects the publicity
focus of the show. The original episode featured efforts to save a troubled
launch party for a client – a publicity generating event. In a later episode the
leadership of Command PR, Jonathan Cheban and Simon Huck, must find a
way to tastefully promote Carmen Electra’s line of romance toys. In each
episode, any public relations work was publicity­related. The background
information at the show’s website did not help public relations’ reputation
either. Employee Erika is described as knowing nothing about PR and very
little about business (Erika 2010). The show’s advice section is about how to
plan a party. The “professional” advice for the public relations person planning
the event includes: “Don’t ever ask to take a picture with a celebrity while
you’re working. It’s the quickest way to end your PR career” and “Smile, no
one likes a bad attitude” (Top 2010). We should note that Command PR con­
siders itself in the business of celebrity PR. Still, the show purports to provide
insights into public relations while painting a picture of public relations prac­
titioners being unskilled, publicity hungry, and adding little value to society.

These six common criticisms of public relations clearly point to the
conclusion that not only does society not need public relations, it would
be better off without it. Public relations subverts and weakens the news
media. Moreover, corporations use public relations to deceive and to harm
stakeholders and to subvert public policy debates.

Popular Press Books Describing the Importance of Public Relations

Another insight into how public relations represents itself to stakeholders
is through popular press books about public relations. The books are writ­
ten by practitioners and represent their articulation of public relations.

Does Society Need Public Relations?

21

We surveyed the bestselling public relations books at the end of 2012 and
selected the two top selling books for discussion.

David Meerman Scotts wrote The New Rules of Marketing and PR: How
to Use Social Media, Online Video, Mobile Applications, Blogs, News Releases,
and Viral Marketing to Reach Buyers Directly to explain the shifting media
landscape and its effects upon public relations. As the title indicates, the
book treats marketing and public relations as related. When public rela­
tions is joined with marketing it is equated as publicity. Scotts’ rationale
for the book reflects public relations as publicity. His position is that prior
to the Internet, public relations helped to attract attention by gaining leg­
acy media coverage about an organization. (Legacy media is a term used
to describe pre­digital media such as print publications, television, and
radio.) Now public relations practitioners can build relationships directly
with consumers. Scotts (2011) stated: “The public relations world has
changed. PR is no longer just an esoteric discipline where companies
make great efforts to communicate exclusively to a handful of reporters
who then tell the company’s story, generating a clip for the PR people to
show their bosses. Now, great PR includes programs to reach buyers
directly” (p. 10).

The New Rules claims advertising is losing its value and may be a waste
of money for smaller brands and organizations. Scotts still believes adver­
tising and publicity targeting legacy media has value for well­known
organizations. His point is that a limited number of organizations have
easy access to legacy media. Those without access are best served by
developing a highly visible online presence. The Internet is changing the
rules of public relations. PR strategies need to exploit exposure on the
Internet to deliver an organization’s story to consumers. Moreover, suc­
cess in the online environment can attract legacy media giving added
power to the public relations effort (Scotts 2011).

Some of Scotts’ (2011) key takeaways for public relations are:

PR is not about your boss seeing your company on TV. It’s about your
buyers seeing your company on the web.

Blogs, online video, e­books, news releases, and other forms of online
content let organizations communicate directly with buyers in a form they
appreciate.

On the web, the line between marketing and PR has blurred (Scotts
2011: 12).

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

22

Scotts (2012) is endorsing the role of public relations in garnering media
attention and selling products. This is a limited treatment of PR that
emphasizes the publicity­generating function of the practice.

Trust Me, I’m Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator, by Ryan
Holiday (2012), was another top­selling public relations book in 2012. As
the title indicates, the book is an exposé of how public relations works.
Holiday reveals a small and very dark aspect of public relations – efforts
to shape the content of blogs. Holiday describes his work as an online
strategist involving public relations and marketing. Again we have the
pairing of public relations and marketing meaning public relations is
about publicity. Here is how Holiday described his work: “Someone pays
me, I manufacture a story for them, and we trade up the chain – from
a  tiny blog to Gawker to a website of a local news network to the
Huffington Post to a major newspaper to cable news and back again
until the unreal becomes real” (p. 3).

Holiday’s strategy is to place stories on a number of small blogs with
the intent of spreading the story to bigger blogs and eventually to legacy
media. His belief is that local and national journalists turn to blogs for
story ideas. Hence, you can influence the content of legacy media by
shaping blogs. You start by populating a number of smaller blogs with the
same story. Holiday would often pay cash or provide gifts in return for
stories on the smaller blogs. The ethics of this practice will be addressed
in Chapter 2. Medium­sized blogs see a number of blogs carrying the
same story and pick up the story. Local news media utilize the medium
blogs as resources and create local stories. The large blogs review local
media coverage and pick up the story because it is appearing in a variety
of local media outlets. The cable and major news outlets use the large
blogs as reference material. When a story appears on a number of large
blogs, the major legacy news media outlets may use that same story.
Holiday refers to this as building a story through recursion. By manipulat­
ing small blogs with low editorial standards, a story can progress up the
media chain. The basic premise is that when the same story appears in a
number of outlets, it is viewed as important and other news outlets will
cover it – the dynamic behind the phrase “pack journalism” (Crouse 1973).

Holiday offers a dark view of publicity because blogs are being manip­
ulated and that influences legacy media coverage. The impact of blogs
may be overstated, because research still shows legacy media covers most
stories before they appear in blogs (Chalmers 2012). But the potential

Does Society Need Public Relations?

23

corruption of messages through blogs is troubling. Holiday’s website
stated: “Bloggers are slaves to money, technology and deadlines. . . I’m a
media manipulator. In a world where blogs control and distort the news,
my job is to control blogs – as much as any one person can” (Holiday
n.d., para. 2–3).

In sum, what is noteworthy about these popular press books is their
focus on the publicity generating function of PR to the exclusion of other
PR functions. They focus on the importance of attracting media atten­
tion, how to work with the media in order to “get your story out there,”
and how this media attention will help establish brands. Holiday’s descrip­
tion of public relations makes it seem as if deceptive practices are required
to obtain the desired media coverage. They also share a recognition of the
limits of advertising in launching new brands, noting that the public is
skeptical of traditional advertising and is more easily influenced by “free”
media attention. In essence, the pro­public relations books feed into their
critics’ concerns. Public relations is still basically publicity. The pro­public
relations books are pro­corporation; thus publicity is considered a good
thing because it helps clients. There is no real defense of public relations
to be found in these books. But public relations is considered useful to
society because it does help business.

Positioning Public Relations

The practice of public relations is cognizant of and actively combating the
notion of public relations as spin. Spin is a form of distortion where
the positive aspects of something are highlighted and exaggerated. One
defense against spin has been to define public relations and delineate the
nature of the practice. In this section we review a variety of efforts to
conceptualize public relations as something other than spin. The search
covers recent efforts to define public relations and global efforts to con­
ceptualize public relations.

Both the Canadian Public Relations Society (CPRS) and the Public
Relations Society of America (PRSA) turned to social media to construct
contemporary definitions of public relations. The CPRS project began in
2008. Terry Flynn, Fran Gregory, and Jean Valin content­analyzed existing
public relations definitions for themes. A definition was constructed on a

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

24

wiki, public comments were used to edit the definition, and the definition
was accepted by CPRS in 2009. Officially, CPRS now defines public rela­
tions as “the strategic management of relationships between an organiza­
tion and its diverse publics, through the use of communication, to achieve
mutual understanding, realize organizational goals, and serve the public
interest” (CPRS 2009).

PRSA began its search for a modern definition in November of 2011
and ended in March of 2012. First, people submitted possible definitions.
A total of 927 definitions were collected and narrowed to three finalists.
People were given a month to comment on the three finalists and then a
vote was held. The winning definition was: “Public relations is a strategic
communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships
between organizations and their publics” (Elliott 2012). Note how both
definitions emphasize public relation is strategic communication – it is
goal­driven – and concerns relationships with publics.

The Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Manage­
ment has led the international efforts to explain public relations. In 2010,
the Stockholm Accords posited that public relations was essential to orga­
nizational success and outlined various ways public relations contributes
to organizations such as “Oversee the development and implementation
of  internal and external communications to assure open listening,
consistency of content and accurate presentation of the organization’s
identity” (Stockholm 2010: 4). Also in 2010, the Barcelona Declaration
of  Measurement Principles were announced. The Barcelona Principles
emphasized that setting goals and measuring results were fundamental to
public relations (Overview 2010). In 2012, the Global Alliance announced
the Melbourne Mandate. The basic premise was that public relations con­
tributes to society by building and sustaining strong relationships between
publics and organizations (Melbourne 2012). Three specific mandates were
identified: (1) “define and maintain an organisation’s character and values,”
(2) “build a culture of listening and engagement,” and (3) “instill responsi­
ble behaviours by individuals and organisations” (Melbourne 2012: 1).

The writings by the Global Alliance reflect the strategic communica­
tion focus found in the “new” Canadian and U.S. definitions. By reviewing
how practitioners and researchers are conceptualizing public relations, we
can see the counter­argument of spin emerge. Public relations is a com­
plex strategic communication function that has a variety of effects upon
the organization’s stakeholders.

Does Society Need Public Relations?

25

There is a continuing debate as to whether public relations is a profes­
sion or simply a practice requiring specialized skill and knowledge. The
concern over being a professional is about prestige and status. By sociologi­
cal standards, public relations is not a profession. In most countries, there
is no control over who becomes a public relations practitioner. One excep­
tion is Brazil but even that society has ways around the system. While most
countries have some form of public relations association, it is common for
only a minority of practitioners to belong to the professional organizations
and to be subject to its codes of conduct or ethics. The United States is a
good example with only a fraction of practitioners belonging to the Public
Relations Society of America (PRSA). People often use the term “profes­
sion” loosely and include public relations practitioners. Or some argue that
people in public relations need to act professionally. However, public
relations is not a profession if we use a strict definition of the term.

We see public relations more as a practice. It is a distinct occupation
that requires specialized skills and knowledge. However, trying to capture
the exact skills and knowledge that comprise public relations practice is
difficult because there are so many variations within the practice. On a
very macro level, public relations can be divided into three types: busi­
nesses, governments, and non­profits. The practice can be subdivided into
in­house and agencies/consultancies. In­house public relations practition­
ers work for the organization itself while agencies/consultants are hired
for specific lengths of time to complete particular projects. Agencies/
consultancies work on a very different model than in­house practitioners.
Agencies/consultancies must compete for clients, can work for many dif­
ferent clients, and are organized around projects and teams. In­house
practitioners are like other employees and work in a specific department.

We can complicate matters by considering the various specialties within
public relations. Practitioners might specialize by industry or by public
relations function. Specializations by industry include travel and tourism,
education, financial, construction, health and medicine, entertainment
and sports, and technology. Specialization by function includes corporate
social responsibility and sustainability, crisis and risk communication,
digital PR, employee engagement, public affairs, litigation, media relations,
public health, reputation management, advocacy and issues management,
stakeholder mapping and engagement, and change communication.
Agencies/consultancies have various units that specialize in various indus­
tries and functions. In­house practitioners are required to cover a range of

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

26

functions such as media relations, reputation management, risk and crisis
communication, and digital PR. Given the diversity of activities within
public relations, we argue that public relations is a set of practices rather
than a defined profession.

Social Media: Revolution or Evolution?

“Social media tools are turning the world of public relations upside down.
It’s confusing and ever­changing and incredibly useful” (Bergstrom n.d.,
para. 1). The sentiment of this quotation is echoed daily in various online
communication channels and are used to sell webinars and seminars to
teach people how they need to harness the power of “fill­in­the­blank”
social media. There is an element of truth in these claims but it is also a
function of hype designed to sell services (Mendelson 2012). The hype
would suggest a revolution is underway in public relations. The hype is
based on the massive numbers of people with Facebook accounts and the
number of tweets per day. We resist providing exact numbers because
those seem to increase each day. A common example is the claim that if
Facebook was a country it would be the third largest in the world. While
numerically impressive, what does it really mean? Is social media ushering
in a revolution or stimulating the evolution of public relations?

The reality is that social media is a new communication channel for
public relations practitioners that must be integrated into their communi­
cative repertoires. The evolution of public relations reflects the evolution
of communication technology. Radio, television, and web pages are all
communication channels that forced changes in the public relations prac­
tice. The unique elements of each communication channel are what cause
concomitant alterations in public relations. For instance, television adds
visual content to messages while web pages allow organizations to post a
variety of message types.

One unique element of social media is that the channels bypass the
gatekeepers found in legacy media (print, radio, and television news) and
reach directly to stakeholders such as consumers or investors. There have
been direct channels to reach stakeholders since the dawn of public rela­
tions. Now there are more channels available at very low costs compared
to earlier direct channels. Another unique element of social media

Does Society Need Public Relations?

27

channels is the potential for interaction between stakeholders and organi­
zations as they can respond to one another. Public relations practitioners
need to decide how best to use this direct access to stakeholders and the
interactive nature of the channels. Interestingly, research consistently
demonstrates that organizations rarely use the interactive potential of
social media channels. For instance, organizations have Facebook pages
but there is very little interaction on these Facebook pages with stakehold­
ers. The interactive potential is largely untapped by organizations.

Moreover, social media is user­generated content meaning that stake­
holders also use the channels to create messages. Those messages can be
comments about an organization, its products, or its services providing
a crucible for forging and a megaphone for amplifying word­of­mouth,
still a rather one­way treatment of communication. Hence, a primary
value of social media is listening to rather than sending messages. An
entire industry has developed around monitoring and evaluating social
media messages related to organizations. Examples of companies that
track social media messages include trackur, Radian 6, and Lithium.
Again, monitoring what stakeholders say and do is not new. However,
there are now more options and more data being generated. Practitioners
must decide what data to collect and how to use it.

Let us return to the massive numbers associated with social media and
provide some context. Stakeholders are using social media and smart prac­
titioners utilize communication that stakeholders employ. For instance,
journalists use online sources for stories. Hence, organizations should pro­
vide information they would want journalists to find in a variety of online
channels such as online newsrooms and blogs. When selecting communi­
cation channels, practitioners have always selected those utilized by their
target stakeholders. Once more social media complicates the media chan­
nel selection by adding more channels and reducing the cost of channel
mix. Practitioners need to know what each social media offers in terms of
the audience it can deliver and what users expect from the channel. We
must remember that just because five million people might use a social
media channel does not mean five million people will see or react to a
message posted on that channel. Of the millions of messages generated in
social media each day, very few reach a wide audience and even fewer have
an effect upon its viewers. Consider how 71 percent of tweets produce no
reaction among followers (Lardinois 2010). The potential to expose people
to a message and perhaps influence them exists in social media but is rarely

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

28

achieved (Watts and Peretti, 2007). However, those instances where social
media does capture attention and move people to action are impressive.
For instance, social media is credited for facilitating the Arab Spring and
prompting Gap to restore its old logo (Ellis 2010).

The social media have been a significant step in the evolution of the
public relations practice. New channels, fewer constraints, and the poten­
tial for interaction have changed the practice. However, the underlying
concepts that enable public relations to be a strategic communication
effort still exist and guide the integration of social media into the practice.
For instance, people are still collecting data about stakeholders (monitor­
ing) to inform their actions and stakeholder utilization of a channel is still
a primary determinant in media selection. A revolution means that the
old ways and systems are replaced while evolution implies adaptation and
changes. Social media’s impact on public relations is much closer to evolu­
tion than to revolution.

Public Relations and the Marketplace of Ideas

A tenet of our democratic society is the free exchange of ideas.
The  metaphor of the “marketplace of ideas” is often used to describe the
process. Everyone has a chance to voice his or her ideas. In fact, the First
Amendment to the US Constitution is premised on the right of people
to be heard, not for someone to speak. The ideas compete in the
marketplace and the winner is the one accepted by the most people.
Public relations is a way for people to be involved in the marketplace of
ideas. It allows them to share and understand ideas before making a
choice (Heath 2005).

People need to have their ideas heard. Public relations is a means of
making ideas audible. Just as all defendants have the right to an attorney,
all people have a right to have someone help them be heard. We realize
that law is often held in low public esteem but it is an essential part of our
society. Public relations can be a communication mechanism for binding
society together through the facilitation of the marketplace of ideas, and
so be valuable and essential to society. As with the law, public relations
can be twisted and misused. However, that does not diminish its overall
contribution to society.

Does Society Need Public Relations?

29

One argument against PR practices is that they reflect unequal power
relationships among senders and receivers, between PR practitioners and
“the public”; it is through PR, it is said, that powerful, wealthy, corpora­
tions present their interests and impose their will on the unsuspecting
public. The notion of power will therefore be a recurring theme through­
out this book.

Public Relations Literacy

The discussion of derogatory colloquial uses of the term “public relations”
and popular press criticisms of the practice indicate that many regard pub­
lic relations with contempt. While we acknowledge that criticisms of PR
practices are justified when those practices are employed to conceal the
truth from stakeholders, we believe condemning an entire practice is
unwarranted. As we have shown, the practice often is misunderstood.
However, other professional practices also are not well understood. For
instance, how many people who are not practicing the law, financial invest­
ing, or auto mechanics really understand these professions and their prac­
tices? Close relatives of public relations include journalism and advertising,
both of which are shrouded by ethical concerns. Research demonstrates
that perceptions of those practices have become more negative as well.
Richard Edelman’s speech at the World Public Relations Forum in
Melbourne, 2012, noted the negative views of the practice. Edelman (2012)
cited an Adobe study that found public relations executives were among the
lowest regarded and a Swedish study that discovered 80 percent of news
coverage about public relations was negative (Edelman 2012). Although we
might attribute these negative perceptions to generalized cynicism, that
step seems extreme. The growth of public journalism or civic journalism
has more laypersons enacting journalistic practices and perhaps developing
an increasing awareness of the challenges of “objective reporting.”

However, concerns and criticisms surrounding journalism, advertising,
and other media production practices themselves often are addressed
through educational programs on media literacy that emphasize issues per­
taining to critical thinking about media, such as motives for creating vari­
ous types of media content, systems of media production, creation of
various forms of media, and media use. For example, in some U.S. states

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

30

and Canada media literacy has been integrated into the curriculum such
that children and adolescents receive training in media literacy along with
oral and written communication skills. The Center for Media Literacy
(www.medialit.org) defines media literacy as “the ability to access, analyze,
evaluate and create media in a variety of forms” (para. 1). It “builds an
understanding of the role of media in society as well as essential skills of
inquiry and self­expression necessary for citizens of a democracy” (para. 2).

Coombs and Holladay (2010) advocate the development of public rela­
tions literacy to enhance people’s understanding of public relations, their
ability to create PR messages to serve strategic goals, and the critical eval­
uation of the practice. Public relations literacy can be viewed as a subset
of media literacy. It involves identifying when public relations is used as
well as how citizens and organizations may use public relations to pursue
strategic ends. It includes understanding how public relations can impact
individuals and society, including its potential to contribute to democratic
processes. Finally, it also includes the ability to differentiate between ethi­
cal and unethical uses of public relations to exercise influence. Education
in public relations literacy may be needed to aid understanding and critical
thinking about public relations and to empower citizens to use public rela­
tions to further causes and issues of interest to them.

The digital age has made it possible for more people and organizations
to gain access to others and to try to wield influence. The ubiquity of digi­
tal media means that everyone with Internet access has the potential to
create and consume public relations messages. Although access can
increase genuine opportunities for citizen involvement with favored
causes, access also can be used for more unethical or deceptive purposes.
The potential for abuses of PR practices is abundant via the Internet.
Education in public relations literacy can help media consumers discern
more transparent uses of public relations from more deceptive uses. For
example, the U.S.­based Center for Media and Democracy’s (CMD) web­
site called PRWatch (www.prwatch.org) presents exposés of potentially
deceptive public relations campaigns, including the identification of front
groups that are funded by special interests but masquerade as grass­roots
movements. The CMD site also includes SourceWatch (www.source­
watch.org/index.php/SourceWatch), described as a site for citizens and
journalists who want to learn about corporations, industries, and people
that try to influence public opinion and public policy. Sites like these can
contribute more informally than school­based educational programs to

Does Society Need Public Relations?

31

the development of public relations literacy and may be especially impor­
tant to adults who have not benefited from educational programs in
media literacy. In addition, websites such as these discuss PR campaigns
that are contributing to current public debates about important social
issues. Public understanding of the basis for these debates may promote
more informed decision making as well as increased activism among
groups who understand their interests are not being represented.

Re-focusing Public Relations

As this chapter suggests, public relations has no single, accepted definition
for the field. But what has come to dominate recent definitions is the idea
of mutually beneficial relationships. This reflects an emphasis on the out­
come of PR activity, and an often idealistic one at that. In this book we
propose a definition of public relations that is rooted in public relations’
fundamental terrain and that acknowledges that public relations is con­
ducted for some actor. Organizations (profit, nonprofit, and governmen­
tal) are the primary actors utilizing public relations. Hence, we shall start
constructing public relations’ terrain on the organization. Organizations
exist within and because of a complex web of mutually influential relation­
ships with stakeholders. In the classical sense, stakeholders are any group that
can affect or be affected by the actions of an organization (Freeman 1984; Bryson
2004). The stake is the connection between the group or individual and
the organization. Stakes can be tangible (e.g., financial) or intangible (e.g.,
support) (Heath 1997). Stakeholders can reside inside or outside of an
organization (Ulmer et al. 2005). Typical stakeholders include employees,
shareholders, customers, government entities, suppliers, communities,
news media, and activists (Agle et al. 1999). Publics are “identifiable groups,
either inside or outside the organization, whose opinion on issues can
affect the success of the organization” (Heath and Coombs 2006: 9). Publics
are collectives that form in response to some issue or problematic situation
(Grunig and Hunt 1984; Vasquez and Taylor 2001). Publics have an issue­
oriented stake in an organization. While overlapping, “stakeholder” tends
to be the broader of the two terms. Hence, we favor the use of that term
over “publics.” Moreover, the stakeholder perspective better represents the
often conflicting demands that various groups place on an organization

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

32

(Bryson 2004; Ulmer et al. 2005). The notion of multiple, conflicting
groups is a very realistic representation of the milieu for public relations.

Freeman (1984) developed stakeholder management as a means to facili­
tate strategic management in reaction to what he viewed as an increasingly
turbulent environment – an environment characterized by greater change
than in the past. Strategic management is about achieving organizational
objectives and the movement from planning to action. Strategic stakeholder
management concerns understanding stakeholders, scanning the environ­
ment, and guiding the way stakeholders and organizations interact with one
another – their transactions. A stakeholder was defined earlier in this section
but here is Freeman’s (1984) original definition: “any group or individual
who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objec­
tives” (p. 46). Freeman argued that the “affected by” is a unique and impor­
tant element of stakeholder management. It is easy to identify and to
appreciate those who can affect organizations. What is often overlooked are
the groups affected by the organization. Those who are affected by an
organization may take action against the organization in the future due to
the organization’s impact on their lives. Freeman (1984) noted, “to be respon­
sive (and effective in the long run) you must deal with those groups that you
can effect” (p. 46). The point is that organizations must anticipate long­term
consequences of their actions to be more effective at strategic management.
Understanding the groups an organization can affect allows management to
understand and to prepare more effectively for future changes.

Stakeholder management is about managing the relationship between
stakeholders and the organization. Management considers a wide array of
stakeholder interests when making decisions and tries to balance the
interests of stakeholders through transactions designed to achieve organi­
zational objectives. While all stakeholders should be considered, their
interests may be contradictory. As a result, there are times when managers
must prioritize stakeholders and focus on the most important ones. Which
stakeholders are the most important can change over time and vary by the
situation (Freeman 1984). Subsequent interpretations of stakeholder
management have refined ways for organizations to analyze stakeholders
and to prioritize their importance in a given situation (e.g., Bryson 2004;
Mitchell, Agle and Wood, 1997).

It should be noted that Freeman (1984) did consider public relations an
important contributor to stakeholder management. Stakeholder manage­
ment only works when management understands multiple stakeholders

Does Society Need Public Relations?

33

and takes their concerns into consideration when formulating strategy and
actions. A weakness is that management often forgets to consider emerging
stakeholders and issues that could affect an organization. The focus is on
stakeholders that already have a “tangible effect on the organization”
(Freeman 1984: 221). Public relations practitioners should have a clear under­
standing of a number of stakeholders given their boundary spanning role in
an organization. Through environmental scanning, public relations people
can help management to anticipate new issues and new stakeholders that
might emerge from the environment. Public relations practitioners utilize
“issue management” to identity and to track concerns and stakeholders that
can “affect the strategic direction of the corporation” (Freeman 1984: 221). It
is public relations that can provide insight into those affected by the organiza­
tion and to anticipate the development of new stakeholders. The turbulence
of the organization’s environment necessitates continuous monitoring to
identify developing concerns. Freeman’s (1984) view of public relations is
consistent with current conceptualizations of public relations as relationship
management and strategic communication.

Stakes can be premised on material and social capital. Material capital
includes money, equipment, supplies, and products. Material resources
include customers buying products, stakeholders investing money, corpo­
rations paying taxes, and employees earning wages. Social capital can be
defined as the “resources embedded in a social structure which are
accessed and/or mobilized in purposive actions” (Lin 1999: 35). Social
capital is built through social networks or with those whom people know.
Organizations and stakeholders form a type of social network. The con­
nections with others rely on a degree of trust and a norm of reciprocity
between the parties. One party can draw upon the other for assistance,
which might be in the form of information, contacts, or influence. Social
capital is a function of social networks and the benefits derived from those
networks. These connections should build trust and serve to facilitate
cooperation and coordination between members of the network (Putnam
2000; Saxton and Benson 2005). In one way, social capital is a reservoir of
good will to be accessed when needed. Customers making positive word­
of­mouth comments, employees praising the organization, and communi­
ties supporting re­zoning efforts are examples of social capital.

Organizations should recognize the value of the stakeholders. Research
has established that a failure to attend to the needs of stakeholders is a
“flaw” that often leads to poor performance (Bryson 2004). On occasion,

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

34

stakeholders can influence organizational performance. The interconnec­
tion between organizations and stakeholders is therefore the basis for
mutual influence. Influence is a matter of power or the ability to get an
actor to do something it might not otherwise do. While each side can
influence the relationship and also resist the influence, they do not,
typically, do so to an equal extent. In most cases the organization has
greater influence and the ability to resist; but the stakeholder does have
some influence and some ability to resist. Resistance is a matter of having
options for acting other than those prescribed for them.

In order to perform well, an organization needs a sense of order to
prevail in its network of stakeholders. Because conflict among them can
impede performance, a goal of public relations is to maintain harmony.
But one way stakeholders can exercise power is to disrupt the harmony by
some form of agitation. Any actor in the network can use PR activity to
spread unrest. Conflict is a mechanism stakeholders have to remind
organizations of their influence and to consider their needs. The squeaky
wheel does get the oil. Indeed, organizations often benefit from this con­
flict by gaining insight into stakeholder needs, and this provides an impe­
tus for beneficial change. Moreover, there may be times when organizations
want to agitate stakeholders and get them involved in some external
cause. Efforts to defeat or to support legislative proposals might involve
organizations inciting their stakeholders to action. Taking all this into
account, we define public relations (as mentioned in the Introduction) as
the management of mutually influential relationships within a web of relation­
ships comprised of stakeholders and organizations. Public relations, like
power, is enacted and managed through communication. We include
“management” in our definition because we assume that relationships do
not merely emerge by themselves. Just as interpersonal relationships
require deliberate attention and communication skills to be maintained,
intensified, or dissolved, relationships between organizations and stake­
holders require management. The inclusion of “web of relationships” in
this definition acknowledges there are multiple relationships that must be
considered, including those that exist among various stakeholders and
other organizations. The ties that bind are complex indeed.

Our definition of public relations is not revolutionary because it is con­
sistent with prevailing views in the field. Hazleton and Kennan (2000)
have used Bourdieu’s (1985) work to link social capital to public relations.
According to Bourdieu, social capital is “the aggregate of the actual or

Does Society Need Public Relations?

35

potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network
of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance or
recognition” (p. 248). Organizations need to have stores of social capital
and the ability to access those resources. Public relations can aid an organ­
ization in developing and accessing social capital. In turn, social capital
reduces transaction costs for the organization. It reduces the financial
costs of “doing business” (Hazleton and Kennan 2000). Grunig and Repper
(1992) also noted that public relations can improve organizational effec­
tiveness by building relationships with stakeholders and thereby facilitat­
ing the achievement of the organization’s mission.

Grunig and Hon (1999) identified control mutuality as one of the key
dimensions for evaluating relationships in public relations. Control mutual­
ity means that both the organization and the stakeholder have some amount
of control over the relationship. They also observed that power imbalances
do occur in the organization­stakeholder relationship. Treating public rela­
tions as managing mutually influential relationships is consistent with cur­
rent thinking in public relations. However, by re­focusing on mutually
influential relationships we want to emphasize the role of interlacing stake­
holder relationships and the centrality of power in those relationships.

Conclusion

In his book Walden Two, B. F. Skinner paints a picture of a utopian society.
This society is built on his principles of operant conditioning. What is
interesting is that even in a utopian society, Skinner recognized the need
for public relations. Moving from fiction to reality, public relations is an
inevitable and essential part of society, much like law. Ideas must be heard
and public relations is a valuable megaphone for ideas. We may not like all
the ideas we hear and some can abuse the megaphone for despicable ends,
but society is poorer if that megaphone does not exist. Public relations is
not without its problems. The greatest challenge for public relations is the
issue of power. Power is a serious concern that public relations has skated
round with the skill of a professional dancer. Chapter 2 addresses the
power issue more fully and explores the implications of power for both
public relations and society.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society, Second Edition.
W. Timothy Coombs and Sherry J. Holladay.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Ethical Implications of Public Relations

2

At its heart, public relations is public communication. Public communicators
always have had special ethical responsibilities and challenges because of
the potential they have for abusing their positions (Starck and Kruckeberg
2003). This chapter reviews the ethical concern that public communicators
have when establishing the lineage of today’s public relations professionals.
They have a boundary spanning role in that they have to understand the
needs of their client (the organization) as well as those of society as a
whole. Even if inclined to privilege the interests of society, they are under
pressure to favor their client. So the issue of power is examined in relation
to the choices they make.

In Chapter 1 we discussed common critiques of public relations and
focused on how popular press books and media often criticize the practice
of public relations. Most criticisms of PR focus on its potential to influ­
ence public opinion, arguing that PR supports particular interests, for
whose benefit the truth is often distorted. We noted how the publicity
functions of PR tend to be overemphasized in discussions of the profes­
sion. We also discussed how inaccurate media depictions of PR practices
may have a deleterious effect on people’s perceptions of the profession.
This chapter concentrates on public relations as a form of public communi­
cation. We will explore how public communication is associated with mul­
tiple, special responsibilities to society. These responsibilities stem from

Ethical Implications of Public Relations

37

the need to practice ethical communication and the concomitant empha­
sis on two­way communication and dialogue in the public arena. Ethical
responsibilities also extend to the treatment of clients because PR profes­
sionals are obligated to represent the interests of their clients. The reason
for balancing the needs of society and the needs of clients produces a
tension that may be difficult to manage. PR professionals may find it chal­
lenging to function as the “conscience of the organization” when the
organization is their employer.

What Is Public Communication?

The origins of the concern for public communication can be traced back
through what is called “the rhetorical tradition.” The rhetorical tradition
is associated with public discourse, argument, and the character of the
communicators. Early Greek and Roman rhetoricians such as Aristotle,
Cicero, and Quintilian wrote about the importance of public discourse
(public speaking) in the open exchange of ideas and extolled its role in
creating a just, democratic society. They were especially concerned with
the ethical responsibilities of public communicators. They endorsed the
idea that public communicators should use sound reasoning, provide
evidence, and be held accountable for their statements. They also noted
that different message strategies could be used to achieve speakers’ goals.

Early rhetoricians were especially sensitive to how the character of the
communicator (credibility, goodwill toward others, morality, concern
with ethics) figured in public communication. Although they noted that
public discourse could be used by unscrupulous characters to pursue evil
ends, the writers in the rhetorical tradition placed a premium on the use
of ethical communication in public discourse. They saw the public arena
as the place where differing ideas could be proposed, supported, and
debated by citizens in order to determine which arguments should pre­
vail. They valued public discussions because they believed this process
enabled the most just ideas to emerge. Open, ethical public communica­
tion was seen as an integral part of the society’s democratic process.
These early scholars were endorsing what we now call the marketplace
of ideas. People should hear all views on an issue in order to make
informed decisions.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

38

Ethical Responsibilities of PR as a Form of Public Communication

Although the early rhetoricians may seem far removed from today’s mod­
ern society, their regard for the power of public communication and the
ethical obligations associated with public communication provide a strong
legacy for American philosophy as well as offer implications for the prac­
tice of public relations. In theory and practice, we can think of ethics as
standards for behavior that influence evaluations of what is right and
wrong. Ethics are about values, and personal, organizational, and societal
standards (Treadwell and Treadwell 2005). Textbooks on public relations
include chapters on the ethical responsibilities of PR professionals and
many academic programs require one or more classes in ethics as part of
career preparation. In spite of the training in ethics, it is easy to see how
PR professionals face many ethical dilemmas in the course of performing
their roles as public communicators.

Public relations activities are performed within the context of a society
whose members may (and should!) critically examine the activities with
respect to their credibility, truthfulness, and intent. In the marketplace
of ideas, we expect a variety of perspectives to compete for attention and
endorsement by the public. We also expect these ideas to withstand care­
ful scrutiny by a skeptical public. The knowledge that any public commu­
nication must be able to endure inspection should motivate PR professionals
to consider seriously the ethical implications of their roles as public com­
municators and to exercise care when sending messages to the public.
Shannon Bowen, in the “Ethics of public relations,” writes, “The power to
influence society means that public relations holds enormous responsibil­
ity to be ethical” (2005a: 294). The potential for public relations practition­
ers to shape public opinion necessarily puts pressure on them to consider,
and practice, ethical communication. They should strive to protect the
public interest while simultaneously engaging in advocacy.

While it is easy to see that ethics are implicated in message dissemina­
tion and influence attempts, we also should consider how ethics are asso­
ciated with listening. PR professionals typically are portrayed as message
senders and as engaging in one­way communication. We assume they
are hired to place their client’s message “out there” in the public arena.
Critiques of public relations often assume this one­way view of com­
munication. But this is only one side of the communication process.

Ethical Implications of Public Relations

39

PR  professionals must also listen. We should advocate ethical listening as
well as speaking. Just as we expect the citizenry in a democratic society to
listen to ideas in order to evaluate their merits and make informed deci­
sions, PR professionals are obligated to listen to their stakeholders and
consider their concerns. Stakeholders may be the ultimate judges of what
constitutes ethical communication by the organization. The public may
rightfully expect dialogue – a give and take of communication – with the
organization. Dialogue is premised on listening as well as speaking.
Listening represents the “two” in two­way communication while “one” is
simply sending a message via one­way communication.

Ethical Perspectives

Thus far we have discussed ethics in general. However, there are different
ethical perspectives grounded in different assumptions about what consti­
tutes moral behavior. The merits of these perspectives can be compared,
contrasted, and debated. We present two commonly referenced ethical
perspectives and then propose a third perspective that best captures the
ethical responsibilities implicated in how we have conceptualized the
practice of public relations.

Two general perspectives on ethics include teleology and deontology.
A teleological approach to ethics focuses on the outcomes of actions as the
basis for moral reasoning. A teleological ethical framework judges behav­
ior according to its outcomes, results, or consequences. You might violate
the law (behave unethically) because it will result in a positive outcome
that you view as morally just. This can lead to the view that the “ends
justify the means.” A utilitarian teleological perspective that focuses on
the outcomes or consequences of an action should be evaluated in terms
of its effects. The preferred action, the ethical choice, is the action that
creates positive outcomes for the greatest number of people.

In contrast, the foundation for the deontological ethical framework is
a system of rights, obligations, and duties. This approach is dependent upon
certain obligations between actors (e.g., contractual commitments) or
between organizations and actors (e.g., the Equal Employment Oppor­
tunity Commission and workers). Laws, regulations, and codes of
conduct that prescribe behaviors are used as the standards for determining

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

40

if behaviors are ethical. The underlying assumption is that ethical actions
are those that fulfill obligations by adhering to the laws or codes. The
codes of ethics for many professional associations can be viewed as reflect­
ing this ethical sensibility. As we will see in a later section, the discussion
of the codes of ethics for two professional associations affiliated with pub­
lic relations reflects the deontological ethical framework.

A third perspective that is beginning to attract attention in public rela­
tions is the ethic of care. The ethic of care is closely associated with
the work of Carol Gilligan, a feminist writer who viewed interdependence
as central to ethical behavior (Simola 2003). An ethic of care places the
focus  of ethics on “maintaining connections and nurturing the web of
relationships” (p. 354). The recognition of the importance of the web
of  relationships fits well with our view of public relations as managing
mutually influential relationships within a web of stakeholder and orga­
nizational relationships. The ethic of care’s focus on interdependence,
mutuality, and reciprocity mirrors our perspective on public relations.
The work of public relations scholar Derina Holtzhausen and her focus
on activism also endorses a focus on “the other” in assessing the ethicality
of behavior (Holtzhausen 2012; Holtzhausen and Voto 2002).

An ethic of care fights the indifference found in other ethical systems.
We have a responsibility to others to work to strengthen our relationships.
This is possible through dialogue because it demonstrates a sense of
responsibility to others. We cannot choose to ignore a relationship simply
because it is not that important to the organization. We must respect
others and maintain connections (Simola 2003). This is consistent with
recent writing on moral competence that stresses doing the “right thing.”
A key component of doing what is right is compassion or caring about
others. An organization must align its values with its actions; if it says it
cares it must show it cares (Lennick and Kiel 2005). However, Holtzhausen
(2012) argues that, because organizations stem from managerial values,
organizations cannot be moral; only individuals can make their own
moral choices that are grounded in the need to take personal responsibil­
ity for actions toward others, especially marginalized others. This means
that individuals ultimately bear the responsibility for their behaviors and
actions that demonstrate caring for “the other” are the most ethical.

Corporate social responsibility offers an excellent illustration of the
ethic of care. An organization can choose to address social and environ­
mental concerns because it is compelled to do so by law or because it will

Ethical Implications of Public Relations

41

help the organization achieve other goals. However, it can also choose
to ignore social and environmental concerns because it is not mandated to
address them or the stakeholder expressing concern has little power
to influence the organization. An ethic of care argues that an organization
should address social and environmental concerns because it will strengthen
relationships with stakeholders by showing respect for their concerns.

We run into issues of impugning motives as we try to understand why
an organization undertook an action. What we can evaluate are the
actions. Are organizations taking actions that are beyond what is required
by law and taking those actions before stakeholders have called for the
actions? Acting beyond legal requirements and acting before being com­
pelled to do so by stakeholder protests implies an ethic of care. We still
can be skeptical that the organization is looking for some eventual gain
from improving the relationship with stakeholders. True, organizations
do increase social and material capital through relationships with stake­
holders. The benefits are a natural outgrowth of the relationship net­
work, regardless of the motive. Hence, we choose to consider the nature
of the action because motives cannot be fully known. If an organization
says it values care, reflects that value in its actions, and produces valued
outcomes, we will consider it to be morally competent and reflecting
the ethic of care.

Professional Associations and Ethics

The professional associations to which many PR practitioners belong
endorse adherence to ethical standards that demonstrate a concern for the
clients they serve. In addition, these ethical standards often acknowledge
the potential power of public communication to shape public opinion and
therefore refer to the need to serve the “public interest.” Although there
is no formal certification process for becoming a practitioner, many pro­
fessionals elect to align themselves with one or more of these professional
PR associations. Several of these associations, such as the Global
Alliance (GA) for PR and Communication Management, the International
Association of Business Communicators (IABC), and International Public
Relations Association (IPRA) boast international memberships. The
Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), the European Public

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

42

Relations Confederation (EPRC), Public Relations Institute of Australia
(PRIA), and the Canadian Public Relations Society (CPRS) are members
of the Global Alliance but are more regionalized associations.

Globalization requires that public relations professionals be aware of
expectations for ethical conduct across the globe. Globalization illumi­
nates differences in cultural values as well as the government, legal, and
media systems that arise from these values and can affect the practice of
public relations. It is important for professionals to be aware of these val­
ues and consult with local professionals to determine what is deemed to
be ethical within a particular cultural context. Despite the potential for
cultural differences in expectations for behavior, the codes of conduct are
strikingly similar across these professional organizations; similar values
underlie the ideals of the communication practice. The belief that codes
of conduct can and should be developed reflects the deontological ethical
perspective’s focus on duties and obligations to clients and the public. The
ethical codes signify that members of these organizations have a duty to
conform to these expectations for ethical behavior. However, there are no
negative sanctions for failing to comply with these codes of ethics. This
means that practitioners who violate these codes will not be punished by
the professional organizations. Nevertheless, violators could be punished
by their employers and/or by the “court of public opinion” if unethical
behavior is revealed. The point is that the codes of ethical conduct formu­
lated by professionals to represent ideals of the practice share numerous
commonalities.

Closer examination of principles within these codes is warranted to
demonstrate areas of shared concern. We first examine the Global
Alliance, an organization that claims an international membership and
acknow ledges PRSA’s influence on the development of its Guiding
Principles.

In the Preamble to its “Guiding Principles of the Ethical Practice of
Public Relations,” Global Alliance (GA) notes PR professionals should be
“guided by a higher sense of serving the public as a whole as opposed to
specific constituencies on an exclusive basis” and obey applicable laws
(Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management
Code of Ethics n.d.: 6). The admonition to “obey applicable laws” directs
practitioners to be cognizant of the legal contexts in which they operate.
The GA’s Code of Professional Standards states “We are committed
to  ethical practices, preservation of public trust, and the pursuit of

Ethical Implications of Public Relations

43

communication excellence with powerful standards of performance,
professionalism, and ethical conduct” (p. 4). The code identifies five values
that should guide member behaviors:

• ADVOCACY
We will serve our client and employer interests by acting as responsible
advocates and by providing a voice in the marketplace of ideas, facts,
and viewpoints to aid informed public debate.

• HONESTY
We will adhere to the highest standards of accuracy and truth in advanc­
ing the interests of clients and employers.

• INTEGRITY
We will conduct our business with integrity and observe the principles
and spirit of the Code in such a way that our own personal reputation
and that of our employer and the public relations profession in general
is protected.

• EXPERTISE
We will encourage members to acquire and responsibly use specialized
knowledge and experience to build understanding and client/employer
credibility. Furthermore we will actively promote and advance the pro­
fession through continued professional development, research, and
education.

• LOYALTY
We will insist that members are faithful to those they represent, while
honoring their obligations to serve the interests of society and support
the right of free expression. (GA code of ethics: 4)

As previously mentioned, PRSA’s code of ethics (PRSA Member Code of
Ethics 2000) influenced the formulation of the Guiding Principles and thus
several PRSA values mirror the GA’s values. PRSA’s Member Statement of
Professional Values includes six values:

• ADVOCACY
We serve the public interest by acting as responsible advocates for those
we represent. We provide a voice in the marketplace of ideas, facts, and
viewpoints to aid informed public debate.

• HONESTY
We adhere to the highest standards of accuracy and truth in advancing
the interests of those we represent and in communicating with the
public.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

44

• EXPERTISE
We acquire and responsibly use specialized knowledge and experience.
We advance the profession through continued professional develop­
ment, research, and education. We build mutual understanding, credi­
bility, and relationships among a wide array of institutions and
audiences.

• INDEPENDENCE
We provide objective counsel to those we represent. We are accounta­
ble for our actions.

• LOYALTY
We are faithful to those we represent, while honoring our obligation to
serve the public interest.

• FAIRNESS
We deal fairly with clients, employers, competitors, peers, vendors, the
media, and the general public. We respect all opinions and support the
right of free expression.

In addition to the six values, the PRSA code of ethics contains a section
titled “PRSA Member Code of Professional Values.” Under the “Advocacy”
value, the code notes: “We serve the public interest by acting as responsible
advocates for those we represent” (p. 2) and “We provide a voice in the
marketplace of ideas, facts, and viewpoints to aid informed public debate”
(p. 2). The “Honesty” value notes the concern with “accuracy and truth in
advancing the interests of those we represent and in communicating with
the public” (p. 2). The “Loyalty” value asserts “We are faithful to those we
represent, while honoring our obligation to serve the public interest” (p. 2).

The PRSA “Code provisions” outlines core principles that should guide
the goals and practices of PR. The core principle concerning the “Free
flow of information” is: “Protecting and advancing the free flow of infor­
mation is essential to serving the public interest and contributing to
informed decision making in a democratic society” (p. 2). Another core
principle, one guiding the “Disclosure of information,” is: “Open com­
munication fosters informed decision making in a democratic society”
(p. 4). A core principle for “Enhancing the profession” is: “Public relations
professionals work constantly to strengthen the public’s trust in the pro­
fession” (p. 6). This includes the goal of building respect and credibility
for the profession.

Overall, the picture that emerges from these codes is consistent with
the recognition of ethical responsibilities that derive from the power of

Ethical Implications of Public Relations

45

public communication to influence society as a whole. Truthful, timely
information that serves the public interest and facilitates informed
decision making is emphasized. However, the codes clearly direct profes­
sionals to serve the needs of clients. GA’s and PRSA’s codes consistently
emphasize the importance of being faithful to “those we represent.”
The implication is that ethical communication entails representing client
interests. After all, the profession could not exist without clients or
employing organizations. So professionals should listen to their clients/
organizations to determine how to meet their needs and formulate
information­sharing and advocacy campaigns to pursue their interests.
But where is the parallel mandate for listening to stakeholders? The
importance of ethical listening is implied but not explicitly stated.
The  code offers no specific guidelines for ethical listening or inter­
action with stakeholders.

The PR professional must walk a fine line in meeting the needs of both
the client and the public interest. When is the line crossed between serv­
ing the public and serving the client? Undoubtedly, professionals recog­
nize some tension between the two. Although specific methods for
resolving dilemmas involving possible conflicts between the public inter­
est and client needs are not provided, the codes seem to suggest providing
accurate information on behalf of clients serves the public interest by
providing fodder for public debate. But can PR professionals really serve
two masters?

The Boundary spanning Role of the PR Professional

It is clear that PR professionals may be placed “in the middle” when
attempting to balance the needs of clients with the needs of society. PR
professionals are in a rather unusual position as boundary spanners. They
take on this role when they connect the organization/client with society
as a whole. In other words, while PR professionals are members of their
organizations, they also have frequent and close contact with the public,
which is composed of multiple stakeholder groups. The communications
they craft for clients are introduced into the public forum. It is this com­
munication with and to the public that necessitates a close consideration
of ethical responsibilities in communication.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

46

In this role of boundary spanner we see the importance of the concept
of mutually influential relationships in understanding public relations.
Basic communication models recognize a distinction between one­way
and two­way communication. As we previously discussed, one­way com­
munication reflects the basic “sender to receiver model” (uni­directional
model) where the speaker addresses an audience. Two­way communica­
tion implies an interaction between sender and receiver where the roles
may switch. The receiver at least provides feedback to the sender about
the message. Two­way communication involves both speaking and listen­
ing to stakeholders. The PR professional not only communicates to
stakeholders, he or she attends to what stakeholders have to say with
respect to organizational actions. Mutual influence arises from two­way
communication.

Public relations theorists have tried to impose a second distinction on
forms of two­way communication by drawing an additional contrast
between asymmetrical and symmetrical models of two­way communica­
tion. Public relations scholar James Grunig (2001) popularized the distinc­
tion between two­way asymmetrical and two­way symmetrical models
of  public relations. The asymmetrical model focuses on the persuasive
attempts of the organization to influence a stakeholder. The organization/
client is trying to change the attitudes or behaviors of the stakeholder.
However, because it is two­way communication, listening by the organi­
zation is viewed as a precursor to persuasion. The model assumes that the
organization listens in order to persuade. But it also assumes that the
organization does not adapt to what it hears from the stakeholder (Grunig
and Hunt 1984).

The asymmetrical model neglects to consider that the organization can
be changed by the information it collects from the stakeholder in the two­
way communication. For instance, when McDonald’s collected information
about recycling Styrofoam in preparation for a new campaign to enhance its
reputation, it discovered that customers could not accept that Styrofoam
could be recycled. As a result, McDonald’s scrapped the recycling plans in
favor of a plan to replace Styrofoam sandwich containers with paper and
cardboard wrappers. This example demonstrates that organizations using a
two­way asymmetrical model can be changed by what they hear from stake­
holders. Hence, the conceptualization of the two­way asymmetrical over­
simplifies persuasion and negates the fact that practitioners engaging in
persuasion can be changed by the information he or she collects.

Ethical Implications of Public Relations

47

The symmetrical model focuses on the balance between the organi­
zation and the stakeholder. It implies collaboration and cooperation
between the organization and stakeholder. A dialogue, the exchange of
messages, develops between them. “Symmetry induces a symbiotic rela­
tionship between organization and public; the two are equal partners,
interdependently sharing information in order to arrive at mutual under­
standing” (Bowen 2005c: p. 837). Symmetry is not a static concept; rather,
it is adjusted over time. There is negotiation between the organization
and stakeholder. In symmetrical communication people do try to influ­
ence one another when engaging in conflict resolution and negotiation
(Bowen 2005b).

But it is misleading to assume that a dialogue in symmetrical commu­
nication will not involve some form of persuasion. That would be like
saying that information is purely distinct from persuasion. In reality, infor­
mation is not really neutral. The selection of information, deciding what
to present and how to present it (or frame it), can be used to persuade
people – to change their attitudes or behaviors. The information we
receive or do not receive shapes our view of the world and how we react
to it. Therefore, it is difficult to imagine a situation where dialogue can be
neutral and not favor some interests over others. The important point is
that organizations and stakeholders may be partners in two­way commu­
nication but rarely will they be equal in terms of power.

We have discussed asymmetrical and symmetrical models to demon­
strate that although the descriptions of the two models may sound good
in theory, the distinction between them is not always clear. In two­way
asymmetrical communication organizations can change as a result of lis­
tening to stakeholders; someone about to engage in persuasion is often
changed by the information he or she collects from stakeholders. Further,
in the dialogue in two­way symmetrical communication there can still be
attempts to influence, and on the other hand, in some dialogues neither
side changes at all. We feel the important point in both models is the will­
ingness to listen.

As used here, “listening” doesn’t mean simply hearing what others
have to say. It also requires seriously considering or acting upon what
stakeholders have to say. Mutual understanding and influence can occur
through true dialogue. Merely giving lip­service to listening by “pre­
tending to care” about the concerns of stakeholders is not truly lis­
tening. As we included in our definition of public relations as the

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

48

management of mutually influential relationships, the relationship is
mutually influential because both parties affect the cognitions and/or
behaviors of the other. In other words, there is some degree of interde­
pendence within the relationships.

Critiques of public relations, such as those presented in Chapter 1,
often seem to assume a one­way view of communication and influence
focusing on how PR professionals communicate with the public. Even the
codes of ethics for the two professional organizations seem to emphasize
one­way communication. In the one­way view of communication, a
sender (the PR professional) is seen as sending a message to receivers
(stakeholders, the public) who supply no feedback on their reactions. The
communication functions as a monologue. This perspective is reflected
in criticisms focusing on the potential power of PR to produce opinion
change. In critiques, descriptions of public relations practitioners’ use
of  VNRs (video news releases), news releases, and publicity campaigns
typically reflect a one­way view of the communication and portray the
receivers (the public) as rather passive and gullible.

In reality, two­way communication between PR professionals and
stakeholders may be more the norm in both theory and practice.
Organizations should be interested in the opinions and needs of stake­
holders. Integrated marketing research has documented the shift in
marketplace power from distributors to consumers. Consumers have
greater power than before, since they are able to access a wider range
on  information about products and services, thanks to the Internet.
Consumers also can function as information­providers and opinion­
shapers through social media activities. Corporations, in turn, must
respect this power and be sensitive to the needs of consumers (Schultz
2003). In order to supply products and services that are desired by stake­
holders, organizations must pay attention to what they are saying they
need and want from the organization. What can this organization offer
to consumers? Does the organization supply what it says it will supply?
Does it meet expectations?

We also must consider the broader context or environment in which
the organization operates. Stakeholders may expand their concerns
beyond the products and services offered by the organization; they may
also be concerned with the way in which the organization operates.
What sort of community citizen is it? How does it affect the local as
well as the global environment? How does it treat its workforce? Does

Ethical Implications of Public Relations

49

the organization support human rights everywhere it operates? Because
an organization operates as a “public citizen” in the public arena, it is
open for scrutiny. As a member of the community, the organization can
be questioned on its citizenship behaviors. Does it contribute to the
“public good”? If it operates globally, to what extent is it a good global
citizen? The pressure for what is called corporate social responsibility
(CSR) is growing.

At its core, CSR is the recognition that organizations have responsibili­
ties to all of their stakeholders. It is no longer enough to meet financial
responsibilities. Corporations must be cognizant of, and manage their
effects on, social and environmental concerns (Rawlins 2005). CSR pro­
grams attempt to demonstrate what an organization has been doing to
meet its social and environmental responsibilities. Chapter 5 will elabo­
rate on the complex dynamics that surround CSR. Organizations are
being called upon to justify their existence by demonstrating that they add
value to society rather than exist for their own profit­making purposes.
The PR professional can alert the organization to these CSR concerns and
warn management when stakeholders perceive that the organization
is acting unethically. Chapter 5 will provide additional insight into CSR
demands by offering some specific case examples.

Tensions for PR Practitioners

From the preceding discussion it is clear that the realities of the business
world place practitioners in a quandary. While the professional codes of
ethics suggest that practitioners should consider the interests of society as
a whole, obligations to clients are mentioned more frequently than obliga­
tions to the public interest. The reality is that the practitioners work for
the client. Who pays the practitioners’ salaries? It may be unrealistic to
expect PR professionals to disregard “who pays the bills” in favor of the
public interest. Consider one of the early statements of public relations
ethics, Ivy Lee’s “Declaration of Principles.” The “Declaration” was hailed
as a sign of a seismic shift, from ignoring to embracing stakeholders.
A  key point was providing accurate information (Wilcox et al. 2000).
However, when push came to shove, Ivy Lee sided with clients. During a
Congressional investigation, Lee was asked what responsibility he had to

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

50

make sure the information his clients asked him to disseminate was true.
His response was “none” (Heath and Coombs 2006). Ultimately, Lee
viewed public relations as a delivery system for the client, not as a protec­
tor of the public interest.

Another source of tension is that exactly what constitutes “the public
interest” may be debatable in a complex society. As we discussed earlier,
there are multiple stakeholder groups that comprise that public. Certainly
the public interest cannot be monolithic. What if these stakeholder groups
pose different ethical standards? Which stakeholder groups should be
emphasized? To which groups’ concerns do we devote more attention? To
what extent do the concerns of stakeholder groups conflict with one
another such that pleasing one will agitate another? Who decides which
groups are privileged over others? Shouldn’t those groups that can more
directly impact on the organization receive greater attention? The web of
stakeholder relationships is complex and interdependent. Supporting that
web requires skill. When making decisions, PR practitioners are likely to
consider that complex web of relationships as well as issues pertaining
to the power of stakeholder groups. The next section explores power and
its potential to affect professional decision making with respect to the
organization, public opinion, and various stakeholder groups.

Power Relationships

Power is a central concept in the analysis of relationships, regardless of
whether they are private and interpersonal (e.g., friendships, marital,
familial relationships) or public (an organization and its stakeholders or
publics). As noted by Leitch and Neilson (2001), “power is a key element
in the analysis of social relationships in nearly all other disciplines . . . and
in social theory generally” (p. 129). A consideration of power is important
to discussions of the practice of public relations.

As we have discussed, relationships are characterized by perceptions of
interdependence. There is some type of interconnection, some intertwin­
ing of behavior. If there is no interdependence, there is no relationship.
When we perceive that another can influence our behavior (regardless
of  whether they choose to or not), then that other has power. People
or groups have power when they can get another to do something they

Ethical Implications of Public Relations

51

would not otherwise do. The other may act (or not act) because resources
could be withheld or provided, actions could be thwarted or supported, or
some other valued process or outcome could be affected. In this way
power always is implicated in interdependent relationships. We can always
ask: Who holds the most power in the relationship? Who could make the
other behave in a particular way? Can stakeholders “make” an organiza­
tion operate in a particular way or can an organization “make” stakehold­
ers adapt to its policies and practices?

The robber barons of the early twentieth century did not change their
ways and embrace public relations until stakeholders were able to lever­
age power and force change. We see that mirrored today in how Walmart
largely ignored critics until 2005. The growing influence of critical stake­
holders on Walmart’s reputation and stock prices has resulted in a vari­
ety of changes to employment and environmental policies and practices
at Walmart, as well as Walmart engaging in a large­scale investment in
public relations (McGinn 2005). Power (or more precisely, perceptions
of power) is important because it explains how influence over another
can be exercised.

In spite of the ubiquity of power, we are wary of it because it may be
abused: it may make relationships unequal and inhibit or even dictate
behavior. We often are uncomfortable talking about power because of
our belief (in the United States, at least) that “all people are created equal,”
and inequities may be exposed that we would prefer to gloss over.
However, we do in fact recognize the greater power that some people
have, either in their own right or deriving from connections with power­
ful others, economic wealth, or attractive personal characteristics, etc.

Earlier we noted how the power to affect public opinion saddles practi­
tioners with an ethical responsibility. When PR professionals consider
their role as public communicators, they must consider the ethical implica­
tions of their words. They also must consider power: the power they
have as organizational representatives to influence public opinion and, on
the other hand, the power of the stakeholder groups that comprise the
public. Corporations are assumed to have greater power than individuals
or other groups because of their ability to gain access to the arenas of
public discourse. For example, their economic resources enable them to
purchase air time, produce VNRs and printed materials, host web sites,
have an active social media presence, and orchestrate public events.
These communication options are what enable them to get their concerns

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

52

“out there” in the marketplace of ideas. When we consider stakeholder
groups, we acknowledge that they also can exercise influence in the pub­
lic domain. We see that some groups will be perceived to have more
power than other groups, because of factors we mentioned, such as
access to large numbers of like­minded people and economic resources.
These powerful and influential groups are more likely to be on the
“ corporate radar” and in the public mind than the small, resource­poor
groups. So while we think of corporations as being all­powerful we
should consider how particular groups might accrue and exercise power
and influence, enough to enter the marketplace of ideas, and influence
public opinion as well. However, when compared to the corporations,
their power is limited. Having power is critical in competing in the
marketplace of ideas. In contrast, the public sphere is more of an ideal
arena that is open to all citizens, whether powerful or not, and where
ideas can be discussed and opinions formed; all voices are equal (L’Etang
1996). So here, public relations can be seen as a corrupting force (Bentele
2005). In the marketplace of ideas, however, the elite – the powerful – are
privileged, and public relations has become an integral part of preserving
that power.

The stakeholder groups can use their power to influence not just the
public realm but also corporate activities. So while power will facilitate
access to the public sphere, power also will allow access to other power­
ful groups. Stakeholder groups can challenge corporations, and those
challenges, when publicized to generate awareness among the general
population, become part of the marketplace of ideas. But that does not
mean that all stakeholders are created equal. Some will be more salient to
an organization than others. This means that the PR professional is likely
to be motivated to attend to the issues raised by some groups more than
by others. Organizations may listen to stakeholders not because they feel
it is the “right thing to do” but because they believe stakeholders may
disrupt their business operations if they don’t. Corporations may listen
for largely selfish reasons. For example, by listening, the organization
may determine ways to satisfy enough of the stakeholder demands to
prevent them from boycotting the organization or developing a negative
social media attack against organizational practices. Corporations may
agree to cooperate with stakeholders in finding alternative ways of oper­
ating. If the changes are acceptable to the organization and sufficient for
appeasing stakeholders, it may be seen as a win­win situation. Also, an

Ethical Implications of Public Relations

53

organization may listen simply in order to determine what is needed for
them to be seen as more responsible. The current concern with corpo­
rate social responsibility demonstrates the sensitivity of businesses to
criticism leveled at them for operating without regard for the public inter­
est. When an organization helps the community, or groups such as
schools and philanthropic associations, by donating money, products, or
their employees’ time, they also are helping themselves. Their CSR pro­
file may be enhanced and they may deflect criticism of other aspects of
their business operations.

Overall, power offers opportunities to access and influence the public
domain. Power also influences the way in which corporations and stake­
holder groups engage each other in public debate. Corporate resources
generally carry much weight and can easily transfer into the kind of power
large organizations need to achieve their purposes. So the advantage is
certainly with the organization (L’Etang 1996).

The Power of PR Professionals in the Corporation

These discussions of power and ethics may create the impression that
PR professionals are among the most powerful individuals within a
corporation. In reality, that is usually far from the truth. They actually
have relatively little power within the overall corporate structure.
While we may think of them as providing the “voice of the organiza­
tion,” in reality it is more likely that they are simply doing as instructed
by their superiors. Although textbooks will describe PR as a “ management
function,” PR professionals often lack the significant decision­making
power that undergirds management strategies. It is for their technical
skills in crafting effective messages that the PR professionals are valued.
Executives within the organization usually make the “big picture”
decisions; they determine the strategy. Then the PR professionals are
called upon to figure out the nuts and bolts of how to enact that strat­
egy. From this angle the PR function doesn’t sound very powerful. So
while public relations practitioners may aspire to be a part of the domi­
nant coalition, the group that makes decisions in most corporations,
they are usually not included (Grunig 1992; Bronn 2001). Interestingly,
Holtzhausen (2012; Holtzhausen and Voto 2002) notes that PR’s

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

54

separation from the dominant coalition may contribute positively
to  the stakeholder engagement process by facilitating trust with
stakeholders.

Typically, PR roles are actually limited to performing tasks related to
message design and dissemination. PR executes the vision and strategy
set out by executives. For example, while they do not plan the strategy,
practitioners may determine how to say it and where to place these
messages. Newsom et al. (2004) note that PR professionals are hired to
be advocates for the organization. In reality, they typically aren’t the
ones determining exactly what should be advocated. But when manage­
ment’s strategic decisions prove to be disastrous, for example when a
management plan is revealed to be problematic, illegal, or “ethically
challenged,” PR practitioners are called upon to “clean up the mess.” It
may in fact be a mess that they anticipated. Perhaps they had warned
management and their protests were not heeded because they were not
part of the dominant coalition; they did not have the personal power to
significantly alter the strategy.

As PR professionals are trying to execute the vision of upper manage­
ment, they may be reminded of textbook descriptions of their role and
ethical responsibilities. For example, Treadwell and Treadwell (2005)
describe how public relations functions as the “conscience of the organ­
ization” (also see Holtzhausen 2012) and Newsom et al. (2004) suggest
it operates as the “conscience of management.” So in spite of the fact
that PR professionals typically do not have the power to make signifi­
cant strategic decisions for the organization, they may be seen as
responsible for monitoring or for identifying the ethical considerations
implicated in the decisions. In serving the needs of their clients, PR pro­
fessionals are expected to accomplish the goals set forth by manage­
ment while being vigilant in adhering to ethical guidelines. If they note
possible ethical violations in the recommended strategy, they can iden­
tify those to management. However, they do not really have the author­
ity to change it. They probably do not have have enough importance
even to raise their concerns about an ethical problem. If they do voice
those concerns about possible ethical violations, will it make a differ­
ence? Or will they be expected to find a way of justifying the breach of
ethics? Everything considered, the power of PR professionals within the
organization is really quite limited. They may not be able to truly let
their conscience be their guide.

Ethical Implications of Public Relations

55

A Postmodern Perspective on PR

Viewing public relations from a postmodern perspective has been gaining
in popularity, owing to postmodernism’s overall influence across a wide
array of disciplines. Postmodernism informs many aspects of our society,
from literary movements to esthetics to educational practices to organiza­
tional design (e.g., bureaucracies replaced by more decentralized and flex­
ible organizational structures). Postmodernism is quite complex and a
complete explanation is well beyond the scope of this book. However, we
can identify at least one important aspect of it that has been influential in
thinking about PR functions and holds implications for its practice.
Theorists who write about “postmodern PR” have been especially inter­
ested in how demographic and ideological shifts in society alter the PR
playing field and how PR should respond to this diversity.

Descriptions of contemporary society often note it has grown more
diverse along a number of factors, including culture, ethnicity, economics,
and class. Along with this diversity has come a greater concern for demo­
cratic practices that recognize and value the different, often conflicting,
“voices” that arise from this diversity. Wedded with the recognition of
multiple voices comes the realization of the inevitable conflict prompted
by these different experiences, beliefs, expectations, and values. Evaluations
of what constitutes ethical practices will vary because of these differences
in values and beliefs. Such disagreement among groups is to be expected.
Groups compete to get their concerns and messages heard in the market­
place of ideas. They will be motivated to become activists in efforts to be
heard – and hear others – in the political arena.

From a postmodern perspective, “the public good” should be viewed as
highly contested terrain. Can there be one public good? How do we privi­
lege the larger interests of society (the assumed “greater good” – compared
to more micro­organizational interests) when society is composed of
diverse groups with different interests, needs, and claims?

Writers who embrace a postmodern perspective (see Holtzhausen and
Voto 2002 and Holtzhausen 2012) note that PR is accused of acting unethi­
cally, and many incidents support them. Corrupt Enron executives used
investor relations messages, a specialty field within public relations, as one
mechanism in the scheme to generate personal wealth at the expense of
investors. The Bush administration, through Ketchum Public Relations,

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

56

paid “journalist” Armstrong Williams to promote the No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) initiative on his show and to other news outlets. Armstrong
never disclosed the arrangements when he was making endorsements for
NCLB (Kurtz 2005). Postmodern public relations theorists suggest that
we should conceive of PR as being able to perform a broader ethical role
within society, working to ensure that disparate voices both outside and
inside the organization are heard by the organization. The ethic of care
seems consistent with the postmodern perspective because it highlights
the need to feel a sense of responsibility to others.

These writers contend that in the postmodern practice of public rela­
tions, the PR professional will act as an activist within the organization
(Holtzhausen 2000, 2012; Holtzhausen and Voto 2002). They suggest that
taking a more activist stance will make public relations more ethical
(Holtzhausen 2000, 2012). What exactly would this look like? How would
this work? It involves acting as an advocate for marginalized stakeholders
as well as for the organization. This view of activism is consistent with the
ethic of care. Holtzhausen (2012) suggests this requires PR professionals
to function actively as change agents, to act as “a conscience” of the
organization, and to give voice to those stakeholders who lack power in
their relationships with the organization. The PR professionals will ques­
tion management, which represents the dominant (capitalist) ideology,
and represent the interests of external publics, and will not shy away from
conflict and dissensus but rather use it to create new ways of thinking and
problem solving (Holtzhausen 2012; Holtzhausen and Voto 2002). They
will recognize that management and its views are privileged and hegem­
onic and strive to move against that dominance by legitimizing the voices
of those representing divergent and marginalized perspectives that coun­
ter managerial views. The professional is more of a crusader or activist in
the postmodern practice of PR. The clash of ideas is seen as beneficial to
the organization as well as society as a whole.

As boundary spanners, PR professionals are uniquely situated to be
exposed to the different perspectives of diverse groups and therefore
should be well suited to identifying conflicts. The postmodern view sug­
gests PR practitioners should pay greater attention to stakeholders, espe­
cially marginalized “others,” and not only enable those groups to become
activists, but they should themselves perform activist roles on their behalf.
It is important to monitor what various groups in society are thinking and
doing with respect to the organization, its products and services, as well as

Ethical Implications of Public Relations

57

to its competitors. PR practitioners can build good will across various
segments of society by demonstrating a willingness to listen to different
points of view and earnestly represent those to management. They can
facilitate a dialogic process in pursuit of social justice.

But is this asking too much of PR professionals? Can they perform the
dual advocate role and fulfill the expectations of postmodern PR theo­
rists? Can PR significantly and accurately represent these competing
stakeholder groups to management? Can these groups really trust PR pro­
fessionals, as representatives of the organization, to voice their concerns?
Can PR challenge management (and the concomitant capitalist ideology)
to change its practices to accommodate the interests of these groups?
Rather than conforming to the norms, values, and codes established by
management to serve managerial interests, Holtzhausen (2012) argues
that PR professionals should embrace their personal responsibilities and
act upon their moral impulse to help “the other.”

The idea of recognizing conflict and using it to create new ways of
thinking and problem solving seems a desirable goal. But is it realistic?
Can PR professionals perform this activist role by challenging the organi­
zation to hear the voices of those marginalized groups? Can they make
the organization want to hear and respond to groups that may be per­
ceived to pose little threat to business operations? Can PR professionals be
granted the power required to promote these kinds of changes? Or must
PR professionals take personal risks to promote these changes?

Again, the issue of power surfaces. We have already noted that PR pro­
fessionals generally are not at a significant decision­making level in corpo­
rations; they are not part of the dominant coalition. Being able to make
meaningful accomplishments in this vein requires power. Moreover, PR
professionals are paid by the organization. Hearing the concerns of a vari­
ety of groups is time­consuming and costly. Is the organization willing to
pay professionals to do this? What happens when stakeholder concerns
work against what management sees as their primary interests? Won’t the
organization be motivated to listen closely only to the most powerful and
influential of the stakeholders? Do PR professionals really have enough
power to place the concerns of stakeholder groups before management?
Might performing this activist role jeopardize their position when the
organization is not prepared to listen or act on the stakeholders’ concerns?
Practitioners could quickly lose credibility with stakeholders. And the
corporation may question their loyalty to the organization.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

58

Perhaps the best we can hope for is that the powerful do not abuse their
power. That is, corporations will allow PR professionals to play a primary
role in allowing divergent voices to be heard and representing the voices of
those who cannot speak for themselves. PR experts may be able to play a
facilitator or instructional role in helping stakeholder groups become
activists and understand how they can use PR techniques to their own
advantage. Of course, the danger is that this may seem akin to “arming the
enemy.” After all, they may use PR resources against the organization and
dominant groups wish to maintain their power. But if the goal is two­way
symmetrical communication through engagement processes, the poten­
tial for meaningful dialogue is enhanced when the playing field is leveled.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, there is no easy way to address the ethical concerns raised
in this chapter. There is no magical code of conduct that will solve all ethi­
cal concerns experienced by PR professionals. Anyone who offers the one­
size­fits­all ethical solution is viewing the context of public relations too
simplistically. From the postmodern perspective, ethics should stem from
individual – or situational – decision making by a moral individual rather
than be guided by normative or universal decision­ making rules imposed
by society. Normative decision making reflects the belief system (or ideol­
ogy) of those in power, benefits the privileged, and reinforces the status
quo. We have proposed that the ethics of care best reflects our definition
of public relations as managing mutually influential relationships within a
web of stakeholder and organizational relationships. This perspective on
ethics leads us to value relationships and see them as a way to facilitate
mutual understanding.

The best advice is that public relations practitioners must listen and
utilize two­way communication to be ethical. Two­way communication
sets the stage for mutual influence. You cannot be influenced by a group
if you never hear it. Learning what other actors expect you to do puts you
in a position of being able to discuss those expectations. Chapter 5 explores
the role of expectations in more depth. But this is the start of a difficult
journey, not a simple conclusion. There are differences in perceptions of
what constitutes ethical behavior and social justice. If this is the case, isn’t

Ethical Implications of Public Relations

59

it likely that some group will be displeased with whatever action is taken
because, within their worldview, it is not ethical? This dilemma is reflected
in adages such as “you can’t please all of the people all of the time” and
“damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” Compromises to please the
most number of people may result in no one being completely satisfied
with the ethics of an action.

The ethics of public relations ultimately lies in the process and the people
utilizing that process. Even medicine has physicians who abuse patients for
personal gain. Ethics ultimately reside within the individual. People can
choose to abuse any public communication method, and public relations
is no exception. The ethical outcomes of public relations actions are
governed in large part by the personal ethics of the practitioner, not the
structure of the public relations practice or well­meaning codes.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society, Second Edition.
W. Timothy Coombs and Sherry J. Holladay.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Who Practices Public Relations?

3

Public relations is more than simple publicity. Moreover, public relations
operates within the web of relationships that binds organizations and
various stakeholders and stakeholders with one another. However,
while public relations uses the term “relationships,” typically the focus
remains primarily on how organizations and corporations relate to
their stakeholders. This “corporate­centric” view of public relations has
dominated the way many scholars conceptualize the field. Their atten­
tion has focused on how corporations in particular use public relations
to further their business success. How other types of organizations, par­
ticularly activist organizations, use public relations has been neglected,
but is generating more interest (e.g., Coombs and Holladay 2012a).

The influence of the corporate­centric view is most evident when we
consider how existing publications discuss the history of public relations
and who practices public relations. This chapter begins with a discussion
of corporate­centric histories on public relations. We then discuss how
power should be seen as a central factor in organization–stakeholder rela­
tionships. Stakeholder theory will help clarify the complexities of the
power dynamic. We then show how activists have exercised power and
have used public relations since the early nineteenth century. The public
relations activities of today’s activists have been aided by the Internet.

Who Practices Public Relations?

61

The  corporate­centric view of public relations will thus be shown to
neglect the full range of public relations practices.

Corporate-centric Histories of Public Relations

The extant histories of public relations take a decidedly corporate­centric
view of the practice. Cutlip’s tome The Unseen Power (1994) is an excellent
example. Using the “great person format,” Cutlip takes us through the evo­
lution of modern public relations, starting at around 1900. We are led
through the pantheon of public relations legends: Ivy Lee, one of the first
true public relations practitioners who was famous for his working relation­
ship with John D. Rockefeller; Edward Bernays, the self­proclaimed “father
of public relations” who viewed the profession as a science; Arthur Page,
who integrated public relations into management decision making at
AT&T; John Hill, co­founder of one of the most successful public relations
agencies; Carl Byoir, who refined the use of special events in public relations;
Clem Whitaker and Leone Baxter, who pioneered the use of public relations
in the political arena; and Earl Newsom, well known for his work with Ford
Motor Company on labor issues. In addition to being public relations lumi­
naries, all of these figures worked in support of large corporate interests.
Even though Whitaker and Baxter were primarily political consultants, their
work for the American Medical Association (AMA) to defeat President
Truman’s national healthcare plan did benefit “corporate America.”

Cutlip’s second book, Public Relations History: From the 17th to the 20th
Century (1995), does provide a broader view. Oddly, this book is barely one­
third the size of Unseen Power. We discover the connection between politics
and public relations, starting with the colonization of America through the
American Revolution and westward expansion into the growing integra­
tion of public relations into national politics, including the Civil War. It
could be argued that the use of public relations to support political efforts
is largely corporate public relations. Both focus on the advancement of the
status quo and the benefit of large organizations. The last two chapters in
Cutlip’s book address issues related to non­profits and the ability of public
relations to promote social change. But there are a mere 27 pages out of
284 pages of text devoted to truly non­corporate views of public relations.

Most introductory textbooks follow the same corporate history of
public relations. Table  3.1 provides a summary of how introductory

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

62

Table 3.1 Historical names in introductory textbooks on public relations

Name Category

Stephen Langton Government
Amos Kendall Government
Harriet Beecher Stowe Activism
P. T. Barnum Business/Agency
George Parker Business/Agency
Jay Gould Business/Agency
Herbert Small Business/Agency
Charles Smith Business/Agency
Samuel Insull Business/Agency
Theodore Vail Business/Agency
E. H. Heinrichs Business/Agency
George Westinghouse Business/Agency
Thomas Edison Business/Agency
Henry Frick Business/Agency
Pendleton Dudley Business/Agency
J. P. Morgan Business/Agency
Cornelius Vanderbilt Business/Agency
Andrew Carnegie Business/Agency
John D. Rockefeller Business/Agency
Upton Sinclair Activism
Ida Tarbell Activism
Lincoln Steffens Activism
George V. S. Michaelis Business/Agency
William Smith Business/Agency
Ivy Ledbetter Lee Business/Agency
James Ellsworth Business/Agency
Rex Harlow Education
Edward Bernays Business/Agency
George Creel Government
Arthur Page Business/Agency
Doris Fleischman Business/Agency
Carl Byoir Business/Agency
John W. Hill Business/Agency
Don Knowlton Business/Agency
Earl Newsom Business/Agency
Leone Baxter Business/Agency and Government
Ralph Nader Activism
Paul Garrett Business/Agency

Note: To appear on the list, the name had to be mentioned in at least two of the six introductory
public relations textbooks that were reviewed. The periods of activity of these individuals are
arranged in approximate chronological order, ranging, with the exception of Stephen Langton
(d. 1228), from the mid­nineteenth to the early twenty­first century.

Who Practices Public Relations?

63

public relations textbooks present the history of public relations. The
bulk of the histories is comprised of corporate examples and contain
virtually the same mix of names, companies, and events. There is the
occasional discussion of the Revolutionary War, westward expansion,
and national politics.

This chapter is not an attempt to rewrite public relations history.
Instead, we seek to illuminate the generally unseen contributions of activ­
ists to the development of public relations. This exploration of activism’s
connection to public relations begins with the notion of public relations as
a reaction to attacks on business. This is followed by a discussion of power
and marginalization in public relations. We then review the contributions
of activism to public relations from the 1830s through to the modern­day
applications of the Internet.

Antagonistic Views of Corporations and Activists

It is worth noting that these “corporate” histories of public relations
focus on corporations using public relations to react to events in society.
In the early 1900s, the robber barons were reacting to the muckrakers
(early investigative journalists) and efforts to regulate business. The
Rockefellers and the Gettys, powerful industry leaders, suddenly realized
that public opinion did matter and so men such as Lee and Bernays were
paid to shape public opinion toward corporate interests. Similarly, the
1960s saw a need to address social issues, such as the consumer and wom­
en’s movements that were beginning to impinge on corporate interests.
Part of the historical evolution attributed to the field of public relations
is tied to activism. However, the activists were viewed as barriers to over­
come or challenges to meet. Activists helped create the “need” for mod­
ern public relations.

If we shift the focus a bit, activism can be seen “as” modern public rela­
tions. In the 1960s activists utilized public relations to attract the attention
of the corporate elite, developing and utilizing many of the modern tools
of public relations. Granted, not all activist public relations tools can be
used by corporations. Corporations rarely protest, though Mitsubishi tried
it unsuccessfully during its failed battle over sexual harassment charges in
the 1990s. Early public relations giants such as Ivy Lee explained to the

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

64

robber barons the need to work with newspapers, the “new media” of the
day. Activists were working with the media, a primitive form of media rela­
tions, and this was helping them win in the court of public opinion. Lee
started a media relations effort to have Rockefeller, the owner of Standard
Oil, featured in favorable news stories. Sometimes these were a result of
Rockefeller’s influence over editors, while others were more “honest” sto­
ries showing the caring Rockefeller giving dimes to children he met.

It is not until the mid­1990s that public relations researchers considered
activists to be practicing public relations rather than simply posing an
obstacle to corporations. This realization was hailed as an epiphany in the
field. Strangely, the evidence had been there for nearly a hundred years!
The public relations field simply lacked the motivation or frame of refer­
ence for taking the activist’s perspective. This chapter explores reasons for
the failure to treat activism as public relations and the need for making the
transition from viewing the activist “as obstacle” to viewing the activist
“as practitioner.”

Power and Marginalization

As noted previously in Chapter 2, public relations research and the prac­
tice have largely ignored the issue of power. Foucault distinguishes
between “power” and “power over,” and his distinction is useful for illumi­
nating further the power dynamic in public relations. Power means that
the actions of A (an organization) affect the field of possible actions for B
(a stakeholder) and vice versa. Basically, power can be taken as the ability
to get someone to do something they otherwise would not do. An exam­
ple would be Burger King issuing new guidelines for purchasing meat
after the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) launched
the Murder King Campaign. Would Burger King executives have executed
the policy shift if PETA had not created a “bleeding” website and negative
media coverage of Burger King? We venture to guess not. PETA was exer­
cising power; it changed how Burger King behaved.

Given that public relations involves mutually influential relation­
ships, power can characterize the connection between organization and
stakeholder. In reality, organizations predominantly utilize “power
over.” For power over, A (an organization) modifies the field of B
(a  stakeholder). The concept of power over recognizes that in the

Who Practices Public Relations?

65

mutually influential relationship, the organization generally has greater
influence than stakeholders.

Excellence Theory dominated public relations thinking in the 1980s
and 1990s. It is premised on having a dialogue between the organization
and stakeholders. This dialogue helps to identify and resolve problems in
the organization–stakeholder relationship (Bowen 2005b). Public relations
researchers operating from a critical perspective have questioned the util­
ity of Excellence Theory, including its failure to address the power imbal­
ance between organizations and stakeholders (Rakow 1989; Coombs
1993; L’Etang 1996).

Excellence Theory, however, chooses to downplay or dismiss the issue
of power and power over. The argument is that activists have just as much,
if not more power, than corporations. If this is the case, why be concerned
(Grunig 2001)? Organizations and stakeholders will naturally engage in a
dialogue. This Excellence Theory conceptualization of the organization–
stakeholder relationship still does not address the basic power­related
issue of who controls the initiation of a dialogue. We see this as a primary
weakness of Excellence Theory. As Mumby (1988) notes, there is power
in the ability to control the communication process. Excellence Theory
counters that a dialogue solves power problems. As Burrell (1996) warns,
dialogue is a weapon of the powerful. This suggests that Excellence
Theory offers a naive conceptualization of power in the organization–
stakeholder relationship because it does not recognize that organizations
have the upper hand when it comes to deciding whether, and under what
conditions, to engage in dialogue.

As noted by Grunig and White (1992) and Grunig (2001), the asym­
metrical model of public relations suggest that stakeholders’ arguments
can force organizations into a dialogue. The point is that public relations
can be powerful enough to contest the power over exploited by a corpora­
tion. This is a valid argument and one we will expound on in this chapter.
However, not all activists have the skill or resources necessary to generate
power. Some argue that activists have power equal to corporations and
that activists have greater access to public attention than corporations. In
large part, the activist influence is attributed to the news media being
enamored with activists and having an anti­corporate bias in news report­
ing. The news media may enjoy the schadenfreude (pleasure in another’s
misfortune) in revealing corporate misdeeds and be drawn to unusual and
dramatic visual images such as protestors chained to fences or perching in

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

66

trees. But societal structures, such as government policy making and news
sources, still favor organizations over activists. Activists must compete
with a wide array of events and issues when trying to capture public atten­
tion. This competition occurs largely within the public arena of news cov­
erage (Ocasio 1997), with the Internet gaining in relevance as a public
arena as well. Public attention is a scare resource, and in the quest for it,
structural features of U.S. society actually favor corporations over activists
(Hoffman and Ocasio 2001).

To appreciate the power dynamic in the organization–stakeholder
relationship more fully, we need to place the relationship in context.
By “power dynamic” we mean the ability of stakeholders to muster the
resources necessary to influence an organization’s field of possible actions
(or behaviors). Organizations never have just one stakeholder relationship
at a time; they exist within a complex web or network of stakeholder rela­
tionships. This network includes stakeholders forming relationships with
one another as well as with the organization. Figure  3.1 offers a series
of  illustrations of the stakeholder networks. The first part of it shows
the typical corporate­centric view of public relations. The second demon­
strates how some view the media as central. The third and final part shows
a more realistic view of the web that binds stakeholders. Excellence
Theory posits that the organization takes every stakeholder into consid­
eration and communicates with each in a two­way symmetrical manner.
This must also presuppose unlimited time and resources.

The management stakeholder literature takes a more realistic approach.
It acknowledges that organizations cannot handle all stakeholders all of
the time. Instead, organizations need to prioritize stakeholders regularly
and address those at the top of the list. Managers focus the organizational
resources where they will do the most good. This means some stakehold­
ers will be marginalized and the organization will choose to ignore them.
The organizations will pay greater attention to stakeholders who have a
greater capacity to influence their operations.

Every stakeholder has power in the form of the threat to remove her­
or himself from the relationship with the organization. Organizational
systems such as marketing and customer relations are designed to keep
stakeholders in the relationship. By leaving a mutually influential relation­
ship, the stakeholder eliminates the organization’s ability to exercise
power over him or her. Why should an organization care if a stakeholder
exits the relationship? The answer is that the organization is in fact harmed

Who Practices Public Relations?

67

Figure 3.1a Corporate­centric stakeholder network

Customers

Community

Media

GovernmentSuppliers

Investors

Activists

Corporation

Activists

Community

Investors Corporation

Government

Suppliers

Customers

Media

Figure 3.1b Media­centric stakeholder network

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

68

by the departure of a stakeholder, and the degree of harm reflects the
power of the stakeholder. Harm can be both material and symbolic.
“Material harm” refers to financial loss such as a drop in revenue or stock
price, a loss of financial capital. “Symbolic harm” refers to loss of reputa­
tion or social capital. The two types of harm are related: reputations have
financial effects on organizations while financial loss can damage reputa­
tions (Fombrun and Van Riel 2004).

Let us use customers to illustrate the point. One fewer customer does
little material harm. However, a mass boycott of a product or service
increases the potential material harm. However, boycotts rarely influence
organizations through direct material harm. Boycotts succeed because
organizations wish to avoid the reputational damage a boycott creates by
its negative publicity. The negative publicity can cause the loss of social
capital (symbolic harm) as well as intensify material harm. Numbers and
public attention are valuable power resources for stakeholders.
Organizations need to believe that a large number of stakeholders will

Community

Customers

Suppliers

Government

Corporation

Investors

Activists

Media

Figure 3.1c Realistic stakeholder network

Who Practices Public Relations?

69

become aware of and be influenced by a boycott or protest before chang­
ing their behaviors. So stakeholders need to be able to build power.

Although we have discussed organizations as having power, organiza­
tions do nevertheless depend to a greater or lesser extent on stakeholders.
Clearly they depend on stakeholders for support. Customers must buy
products or services, stockholders must invest money, and communities
must provide favorable operating climates. In addition, organizations rely
on stakeholders to refrain from interfering with their business or contest­
ing their reputation. Challenges – or the potential for challenges – to
either reputation or operations are problematic and may necessitate a
response. Challenges can be traced back to conflicts of interests. If stake­
holders perceive that an organization poses a threat to their interests they
may decide to challenge the organization.

Stakeholder theory offers an explanation of how stakeholders come to
be viewed as powerful and thereby important to management. In their
review of the stakeholder literature, Mitchell et al. (1997) propose three
dimensions for evaluating the salience of stakeholders: (1) power (the
ability to get an actor to do something he or she would not do other­
wise); (2) legitimacy (the perception of actions as appropriate, desirable,
or proper within the context of some belief system); and (3) urgency (the
extent to which the timeframe is important, e.g. immediate action being
called for because of the importance of the claim or the relationships to
stakeholders) (Agle et al. 1999; Bryson 2004). Their proposal has been
well received in the management literature (e.g., van Riel 2000).
Stakeholder salience is a function of the ability to demonstrate these
three attributes. High scores translate into a higher prioritization for the
stakeholder. In other words, if management perceives activists to demon­
strate these three attributes, management will feel pressure to deal with
the stakeholders and their issues.

This is further complicated by the fact that the demands of different
stakeholder groups are often contradictory or mutually exclusive. The
importance of various stakeholders can change depending on the situa­
tion (Newsom et al. 2004). The issues advocated by competing groups
must be prioritized according to their threat level as determined by their
ability to impact negatively on the organization and their probability of
developing momentum. Mitchell et al. use their three factors to prioritize
stakeholders and develop seven different categories of stakeholders, which
are shown in Table  3.2. The higher the prioritization, the more likely

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

70

organizational management is to address the relationship with the stake­
holder. The highest priority goes to their “definitive” stakeholders because
they possess power, legitimacy, and urgency.

Activists tend to populate the discretionary and dependent categories.
There are, however, a few, elite non­government organizations (NGOs)
that  have power based on their years of activity, strong organizational
structure, and communication skills. Greenpeace is one such elite NGO.
We are working under the assumption that any activist group has a legiti­
mate concern, in other words, that other stakeholders would agree the
situation in question is a problem. Discretionary stakeholders have
legitimacy but lack power and urgency. There is a legitimate problem but
no  rush to address it because little attention is focused on the issue.
Organizational management has no pressing need to address their
concerns. Discretionary stakeholders can be marginalized. Management
often addresses discretionary stakeholders only out of a need for corpo­
rate social responsibility (Mitchell et al. 1997).

Dependent stakeholders possess legitimacy and urgency. These stake­
holders depend on others because they lack power. The “others” could be
additional stakeholders or members of an organization’s own manage­
ment team. One view in critical public relations is that the public relations
person should be that “other” (Holtzhausen 2000, 2012). Still, organiza­
tional management can choose to marginalize dependent stakeholders. In
other words, they can rank them a low priority. The “good news” in the
Mitchell et al. system is that stakeholder salience is fluid. Power, legiti­
macy, and urgency can change over time, leading to a re­evaluation and
re­prioritization of the stakeholder. We echo others in maintaining that
public relations is a vital resource in controlling the process. This is

Table 3.2 Stakeholder categories (Mitchell et al. 1997)

Latent stakeholders: possess only one of three salience attributes.
Dormant: power only
Discretionary: legitimacy only
Demanding: urgency only

Expectant stakeholders: possess two of the three salience attributes.
Dominant: power and legitimacy
Dependent: legitimacy and urgency
Dangerous: power and urgency

Definitive stakeholders: possess all three salience attributes.

Who Practices Public Relations?

71

important because activists will be perceived to have greater salience
when the attributes of power, legitimacy, and urgency are strong (Coombs
2002; Coombs and Holladay 2012b).

The salience of a stakeholder has implications for trying to facilitate
change. Changes in organizational behaviors can be voluntary or involun­
tary but both are driven by salience. For instance, an organization can
willingly implement workplace anti­violence policies or be required to do
so by government agencies. Pressure from stakeholders can also lead an
organization to change, a pressure stemming from the fear that stake­
holders will leave the relationship. Companies are concerned to be socially
responsible largely because so many stakeholders believe in the value of
social responsibility. Thus, change can be driven by external factors.

However, research in this area strongly suggests that someone or some
group in an organization must support a change if it is, first of all, to hap­
pen, and secondly, to endure. As noted earlier, critical public relations theo­
rists posit that public relations practitioners should be the internal advocate
for marginalized voices (Holtzhausen 2012). But a PR internal would­be
advocate is unlikely to be inspired by marginal stakeholders; their calls are
easy to ignore and offer little incentive for change. To be successful, mem­
bers of top management must publicly support the change as well.

Involuntary change is a result of policy decisions. Policy decisions take
the form of laws or regulations. After decades of public service announce­
ments about seat belt benefit, states simply made it a law that seat belts
must be worn. Policy decisions can result from a mix of external pressure
and internal champions. Through media coverage, pressure can build on a
government agency to take action. The public and media agenda do influ­
ence government policy (Gandy 1982; Kingdon 1984; Manheim 1987). Once
a cause appears on the media and public agendas, it becomes well known
and supported by a large number of people. There always has been power
in numbers when it comes to policy making. For example, the pressure to
ban Alar, a chemical designed to improve the appearance of fruit, was an
orchestrated effort designed to pressure the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) through the media and public agendas. The news media por­
trayed Alar as harmful and public opinion strongly favored its banning. The
EPA eventually banned Alar even though there was little scientific data to
support the action. (Chapter 4 explores the Alar case in greater detail.)

While media and public agendas can influence the policy agenda, there is
no guarantee. A cause can gain media or public attention but never transfer

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

72

to the policy agenda. One factor that can aid a cause is an inside champion.
An inside champion is a powerful political actor who fights for the cause inside
the policy making machine. The inside champion realizes the issue has
value for her or his political career. Research has shown that one key factor
for a cause moving from the media and public agendas to the policy agenda
was an inside champion (Arnold 1989). Another reason that marginal stake­
holders find it difficult to affect media, public, or policy agendas is that they
lack the salience to build agendas that are attractive to inside champions.

The challenge for activist groups has always been how to move from the
margin to claim the attention of organizational leadership. The movement
from marginal to salient involves managing the mutually influential rela­
tionships, and encouraging management to recognize that the stakeholder
is gaining influence. Both traditional and non­traditional public relations tac­
tics can be used to attract the public attention necessary to do this. The more
people there are who know about the concern, the greater the likelihood of
yet more people adding their support (Crable and Vibbert 1985). And the
more people, especially high profile people, who support a cause the greater
the perceived power of the activist group. This is why modern activists allo­
cate time to training in the media and in Internet use, to better reach and
mobilize people (Ryan 1991). We will give examples of activists using public
relations in the past and later using the new communication technology as
it evolves. This journey will demonstrate that there is a history and tradition
in activism that began some time before the modern corporation.

First Reform Era: Abolitionism and Temperance

In the 1830s and 1840s, the United States witnessed its first wave of organ­
ized efforts to bring about social reform. These reformers fought to cor­
rect social ills such as slavery (the abolitionists) and the negative social
consequences of excessive drinking (the temperance activists).

The abolition movement in the United States emerged in the 1830s as
an extension of the Second Great Awakening, a religious revivalist move­
ment of the time. Slavery was associated with sin and emancipation was
the way of repentance. In 1831, brothers Arthur and Lewis Tappan formed
the Anti­Slavery Society in New York. Two years later the society became
nationwide. The Anti­Slavery Society sought to reach a wide audience

Who Practices Public Relations?

73

with its message and to develop support for emancipation. The Society
used public meetings, petitions, printed leaflets, posters, journals, ser­
mons, and public lectures to reach their target audiences. One of the
prominent orators was Sojourner Truth. She was a New York slave who
had been freed when the state abolished slavery in 1827. By 1840, the
Society had over 2,000 local chapters, 250,000 members, and had pub­
lished over twenty journals (Anti­Slavery Society, 2005). Even literature
was used as a communication channel. Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle
Tom’s Cabin was considered an effective persuasive device. The book
brought the abolitionist message into the homes of white America and
converted many to the cause (“I will be heard,” 2005).

That same year, the Tappans lead created a splinter group known as
the American and Foreign Anti­Slavery Society. They, and other men in the
Anti­Slavery Society, did not approve of the growing role of women  in
the  abolitionist movement. Women were now speaking in public and
serving on the Society’s executive board. Among them were the abolition­
ists Amelia Bloomer and Susan B. Anthony, They also strove for women’s
suffrage. There was an overlapping of social issues and activists in the
1800s. Today, it is hard to imagine that the abolitionists were very unpopular
and faced stiff opposition when they first started speaking on the issue.
These brave individuals still carried their persuasive message to others.
Eventually a strong political element of abolitionists emerged through lob­
bying and political parties. Abolitionists helped to make emancipation one
of President Lincoln’s goals in the Civil War (Anti­Slavery Society 2005).

Temperance activists were at first contemporaneous with abolitionists
but the movement extended beyond the 1800s to the 1900s. Temperance was
much more than a matter of banning the sale of alcohol. Excessive drinking
was seen to be linked to many social problems, including domestic abuse,
severe health problems, and crime. Because women often bore the brunt of
the alcohol­related problems they were among the leaders of temperance
efforts. Temperance and women’s rights were intertwined, hence leaders
such as Susan B. Anthony were significant figures in both causes. Temperance
was not an issue confined to the United States. Ireland, Scotland, England,
Norway, and Sweden all experienced extensive temperance efforts. In the
United States, temperance activities began as early as 1808 and extended into
the early 1900s with the passage of the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) in
1919. Among the items on the agenda were government control over alco­
hol and education on alcoholism in schools. Temperance activists were issue

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

74

managers. They used communications strategically in order to shape public
policy decisions. A closer look at their activities will illustrate how these
activists were practicing public relations (Coombs and Holladay 2012b).

The practice of public relations cannot be separated from the channels
of communication. During the heyday of the temperance movement,
the  primary channels were public speeches and events, sermons, and
minor publications. As with issues management today, activists needed to
create public awareness of the problem and support for their solutions
to  the problem. Communication is the tool for creating awareness and
building support. Modern public relations practitioners often create
what historian Daniel Boorstin calls “pseudo­events.” A pseudo­event is
designed in part to attract attention. Today it is the legacy and social media
whose attention is attracted. In the 1800s the focus was on public attention:
people coming out to witness an event. Temperance activists would hold
large outdoor meetings and parades, picket to stop delivery of alcohol,
and engage in civil disobedience to draw attention (Hanson, 2009). The
Women’s Christian Temperance Union and Carry A. Nation illustrate the
public relations efforts of the temperance activists.

The Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) was founded in
1873. Its crusade was born with a pseudo­event in Hillsboro, Ohio. On
Christmas Eve of 1873, Mrs. Eliza Thompson, a respected woman in the
community, led 70 women from praying on their knees in a local
Presbyterian church to the nearby saloons. Singing “Give to the winds thy
fears,” the women marched two­abreast into drinking establishments and
prayed for the wayward souls. Mrs. Thompson and her followers repeated
this act throughout the town. If they could not get into an establishment,
they prayed in front of it in the snow. Eventually all of the establishments
that sold liquor agreed to stop selling alcohol. This became the model for
other chapters of the WCTU to follow.

Mrs. Thompson’s efforts were very effective at generating publicity
and  spreading the word. Early publications in Cincinnati, Chicago, and
New York covered the event. Harper’s Weekly, an influential publication
at the time, ran stories and cartoons about the events. The Ohio crusade
became a staple part of temperance speeches and was even noted in
sermons. The available communication channels were being brought to
bear on the problem (Crusades 2005).

In 1881, Kansas became the first state to outlaw the sale and production
of alcohol. The laws in Kansas were unevenly enforced to say the least.

Who Practices Public Relations?

75

Men were still able to drink and the social problems related to alcohol
abuse continued in the state. As early as 1855, women in Kansas were
smashing bars. But Carry A. Nation knew the public relations value of this
action. Carry Nation’s first husband, Charles Gloyd, was an alcoholic. His
drinking ruined their marriage and eventually claimed his life. She later
married David Nation. After they moved to Medicine Lodge, Kansas, she
began her crusade against alcohol. At first she tried legal means. After all,
it was illegal to sell alcohol in Kansas. After limited success, Carry Nation
heard a voice in a dream that inspired her to smash saloons. She began by
throwing rocks and then switched to her well­known hatchet.

Carry A. Nation was not a crazed woman listening to voices in her head.
Her actions were calculated and designed to build attention and support
for the temperance cause. Carry trademarked her name, sold little pewter
hatchet pins to cover her fines, traveled widely to lecture on the evils of
alcohol, published a newsletter titled “The Smasher’s Mail,” and continued
to smash salons with a hatchet. She was known as “the Lady with the
Hatchet.” She used her notoriety to spread her cause. Carry Nation’s
actions were a calculated attempt to make people aware of the social prob­
lems of alcohol and the need to ban its sale. Today, Carry Nation would be
viewed as engaging in guerrilla public relations (Carry A. Nation 2005).

Many well­crafted issue management efforts fail. Political scientists note
that having powerful allies helps to move an issue forward and to create
public policy (Arnold 1989). An important function of these messages that
communicate about an issue is coalition building. The temperance activists
found allies in the business community. Business leaders wanted to support
their cause because hung­over workers were costing them money. Heavy
drinking resulted in workers being absent and having accidents. Business
leaders viewed temperance as a means of improving productivity. Women
saw it as a way to combat social ills and to save money. It was not uncom­
mon for men to drink more than one half of their wages in the 1800s.

Public relations aspect

In the 1800s, the term “public relations” did not exist, but that does not
mean the activity of public relations did not exist. Stakeholders existed,
there was mutual influence, and actors did try to manage the mutually
influential relationships. Part of public relations involves using communi­
cation to shape public opinion in order to influence public policies.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

76

Temperance and abolitionist activists were using public relations to create
pressure for social change. Activists of this era employed the print media,
public speeches (including sermons), and pseudo­events to draw attention
to and build support for their cause. The activists in the First Reform Era
were strategically using communication in a sustained effort to combat
the social evils of alcohol by influencing public  opinion. We need to con­
sider these early activists as practicing public relations.

Second Reform Era: The Muckrakers

Accounts vary, but the Progressive Era in the United States ran from about
the 1890s until the 1920s. Prohibition and women’s suffrage, two First
Reform Era issues, reached maturation during this time. The United States
was undergoing a significant social transformation. Industrialization,
urbanization, and immigration were altering the basic social fabric of
society. The transformation brought crime, poverty, disease, and corrup­
tion as well as changing how people worked and lived. The problems of
the transformation led many to demand additional changes.

Socialism emerged as one of the voices for change. The socialists
wanted to eliminate capitalism and the “disease” it spread, and they found
eager converts among the poor and working class. Their radical ideas led
to many heated and violent conflicts between capitalists and socialists,
mostly in the form of labor strife. Progressives sought to reform the ills of
society through the existing society. They were middle­ and upper­class
citizens, who put their faith in the power of educated individuals who are
dedicated to a cause. A variety of non­profit organizations were created to
address societal ills. A new breed of investigative journalists arose from
the clamor of the Progressive Era: the muckrakers.

From 1900 to 1915, the muckrakers were a catalyst for changing
American society. Their writings produced such varied reforms as child
labor laws, the dissolving of Standard Oil, the conservation of natural
resources, and workmen’s compensation laws. Today these varied writ­
ers are collectively known as muckrakers. “Muckraker” is a derogatory
term used by their one­time ally President Theodore Roosevelt.
Roosevelt was driven to reform and election by the concerns raised by
muckrakers. However, when muckrakers revealed inappropriate actions

Who Practices Public Relations?

77

by Roosevelt supporters in the Senate, the President changed his tune.
In a 1906 speech, Roosevelt said the investigative reporters were like the
muckrakers in Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress. They only stared down at
their muck and could not see the celestial crown overhead. After
Roosevelt’s label was applied, the muckrakers experienced a decline in
readership and influence, from a peak in 1906 of over 3 million readers
(Muckraking 2005).

Muckrakers are considered the impetus for modern public relations.
The corporate leaders of the day, known as robber barons, hired public
relations people such as Ivy Lee to combat the negative publicity and pub­
lic opinion generated by the muckrakers. Muckrakers used the printed
word as their means of informing and persuading people about social
issues. They used a mix of books, newspapers, and magazines. Upton
Sinclair and Ida Tarbell serve to illustrate how muckrakers reached and
influenced others with their words.

Upton Sinclair was a socialist who wanted to improve U.S. society. In
1904, he was commissioned by the socialist publication Appeal to Reason to
write a book about the poor working and living conditions of immigrants
who serviced the Chicago meat packing industry. Sinclair lived among the
workers for seven weeks to understand their plight. He was appalled by
how these people were treated. The result was The Jungle. His writings
were serialized in Appeal to Reason in 1905. However, Sinclair wanted to
take the plight of these workers to a broader audience. The problem was
that no one wanted to publish the book. Six different publishers turned
him away. They feared the message of social change Sinclair advocated.
Sinclair pressed on and announced in Appeal to Reason that he would pub­
lish the book himself. When Doubleday learned that he had 972 orders,
the company agreed to publish The Jungle. It sold over 150,000 copies in
the first year. It was eventually published in 17 languages and was a best­
seller around the world.

The Jungle inspired President Theodore Roosevelt to investigate the meat
packing industry. He and other Americans were horrified by the unsani­
tary conditions of the facility and the abuse of its workforce. The Pure
Food and Drug Act (1906) and the Meat Inspection Act (1906) were attrib­
uted to Sinclair’s efforts. Sinclair himself was less than excited. His goal was
to help the workers and that did not transpire. He lamented aiming
for  people’s hearts but instead hitting their stomachs. Even the two Acts
were more style than substance. The names reassured the angry American

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

78

public that their meat was safe. Little actually changed in the industry but
the Acts created quiescence among consumers (Upton Sinclair 2005).

Ida Tarbell did not have the crusading passion of Upton Sinclair but was
a leading muckraker nonetheless. Tarbell’s The History of Standard Oil was
an exposé of John D. Rockefeller’s unethical and often illegal business prac­
tices. First published as a nineteen­part series in McClure’s magazine, a
leading muckraking publication, it later became a book that has been rec­
ognized in the top five of the most important works by twentieth­century
journalists (People & Events 2000). Prior to muckraking, Tarbell had been
a well­known biographer writing books about Napoleon and Abraham
Lincoln. The History of Standard Oil was a carefully documented work, based
on court records and interviews with both victims of, and workers for,
Standard Oil. She even gave an advance copy to Standard Oil management
for comment. Rockefeller referred to her as “Tarbarrel.” Tarbell was victori­
ous in the end, since Standard Oil fell victim to trust busting (the breaking up
by government of a monopoly). Rockefeller’s oil empire was dismantled.

Tarbell had an agenda like other muckrakers. Her father had been in
the oil industry in western Pennsylvania and was ruined by one of
Rockefeller’s early predatory practices, the South Improvement scheme.
Tarbell had a distaste for Rockefeller, and so pitched the idea of an exposé
of the oil industry to McClure’s. She described Rockefeller as money­mad,
a hypocrite, and a living mummy. Tarbell’s careful investigative journal­
ism reflected a particular point of view (People & Events 2000).

Public relations aspect

The muckrakers used the growing print media to reach people. Through
their exposés, muckrakers raised awareness of various causes and rallied
people to them. Stakeholders moved from quiescence to agitation against
large corporations. The power of the mass media as a tool for influencing
stakeholders emerged. Sinclair and Tarbell are but two examples of how
publicizing an issue can result in government reform and societal changes.
Muckrakers used public communication to pursue objectives and influ­
ence relationships. It was by combating them on behalf of corporations
that Ivy Lee established his reputation; his efforts were reactions to the
muckrakers. The muckrakers were the first to understand the utility of

Who Practices Public Relations?

79

the mass media. These “original” public relations practitioners of the first
half of the twentieth century encouraged corporations to become
involved in influencing stakeholders. A public relations device (publicity)
pioneered by activists was assimilated into the corporate world. Early
publicists had simply brought their own take to the subject.

Saul Alinsky: Activism in the 1960s

The stockyards of Chicago gave birth to another great reformer: Saul
Alinsky. While researching juvenile delinquency in the area, Alinsky
decided he had to shift from watching to acting. He developed a model of
community based organizing; it would be to teach a community how to
unite and to fight for its rights. He became a central figure in numerous
community action efforts in the 1960s, including those in Buffalo, New
York, Kansas City, Missouri, and among the migrant workers in California.
Clearly Alinsky was not the only activist or radical at work in the 1960s.
However, he articulated a vision of activism that correlates with public
relations more strongly than theirs did. Alinsky would use non­traditional
public relations to attract publicity and put pressure on the power elites in
communities. His publicity efforts were designed to prove that a commu­
nity was united and a force to be addressed. His work in Rochester serves
as an excellent example.

For many people, Rochester, New York means one thing: Eastman
Kodak. The Kodak company built and controlled Rochester for decades. It
was suspected of discrimination in hiring workers, and in 1964 became
the focal point for a series of race riots that tore the town apart. The
Rochester Area Council of Churches, a collection of white and black
clergy, asked Saul Alinsky for help in extracting concessions for the work­
ers from Kodak. The invitation was enough to ignite an initial firestorm
of publicity. Newspapers and radio stations condemned the inviting of a
hatemonger who could only make the situation worse. When the con­
servative news media turned against Alinsky, the African American com­
munity decided they definitely needed Alinsky.

When he arrived at the airport, Alinsky was asked why he would work
against Kodak, a company that had given so much to the black commu­
nity. Alinsky replied, “Maybe I’m uninformed, but as far as I know the

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

80

only thing Kodak has done on the race issue in America is to introduce
color film.” Alinsky formed a community group known as FIGHT
(Freedom, Integration, God, Honor, Today). He planned the first ever
“fart­in.” Rochester’s elite, among whom were Kodak managers, loved
their symphony orchestra. The plan was to buy 100 tickets for protesters
for a concert when the music would be soft, feed them baked beans before
it began, and have them pass gas, loudly, throughout the performance.
Talk of the “event” put some pressure on Kodak.

Traditional tactics placed greater pressure on Kodak. Starting with
the General Assembly of the Unitarian­Universalist Association, Alinksy
began collecting proxy votes for Kodak’s upcoming annual meeting.
Reports of FIGHT receiving over 5,000 shares raised concern. Soon many
other religious organizations and supportive individuals were signing
over proxies to FIGHT. Kodak designated FIGHT as the official repre­
sentative of the Rochester black community and began to change its
hiring practices.

Alinsky’s second book, Rules for Radicals, outlines his process for effec­
tive community organizing. His advice is to keep in mind that community
organizing is issues management. The organized community will agitate
for change. His fifth chapter is titled “Communication” and opens as
follows: “One can lack any of the qualities of an organizer – with one
exception – and still be effective and successful. That exception is the art
of communication” (Alinsky 1971: 81). Many of the comments in his
chapter fit perfectly with writings on public relations. Communication,
for instance, is viewed as a two­way process.

The central role of communication for Alinsky is to create understand­
ing, a point shared with public relations. To create understanding, a com­
municator needs to know the stakeholders. Alinsky believed you could
know the stakeholders through experiences. People only understand
things through their own experiences and frames of reference. Hence, an
organizer must discover and work within the experiences of the people he
or she is targeting. “Since people understand only in terms of their own
experience, an organizer must have at least a cursory familiarity with their
experience” (1971: 84). Through this knowledge the organizer under­
stands the stakeholders’ values and goals. These values and goals then
become the focal point of the messages. Alinsky is describing the process
of using research to better understand and to more effectively communi­
cate with stakeholders, ideas very germane to public relations.

Who Practices Public Relations?

81

Public relations aspect

Saul Alinsky understood the notion of power. Corporations and govern­
ments have it while community groups need to acquire it if they are to
create change and promote dialogue. “It is only when the other party is
concerned or feels threatened that he will listen” (1971: 89). Alinksy also
knew that publicity, along with organizing, would help to build power.
Rules for Radicals is in many respects a public relations primer for activists
with its focus on communication as a mechanism for influence. In addi­
tion, Alinksy often used public communication as a means to re­shape
relationships and corporate actions. As they had seen with the muckrak­
ers, corporations in the 1960s needed to bolster public relations efforts in
response to the demands of activists such as Alinsky.

Birth of Issues Management

Environmentalism was one of the activist forces that developed in the
1960s. Environmental activists shocked corporations in the United States
by successfully establishing laws and regulation to curb pollution such as
the Clean Air Act of 1970. Science was a critical aspect in the success of
environmental activists. The emerging field of environmental science,
stimulated by government funding in the United States and the U.K.,
documented the existence of the negative health effects of air pollution
on humans. The environmental activists expertly tied business to
pollution­making corporations, the villain in the developing environmen­
tal narrative. The vilification of corporations made is easier for environ­
mental activists to win policy changes to reduce pollution. By shaping the
meaning of pollution, activists rallied public opinion to their side which
was then translated into their desired policy changes (Conley 2006; Downs
1972). The environmental activists were pioneering what was to become
issues management, systematic communicative efforts designed to influ­
ence policy decisions (Coombs and Holladay 2010).

Corporate public relations studied the success of the environmental
activists to determine how they might resist new laws and regulations
more effectively. The key lesson corporate public relations identified was

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

82

public opinion’s pivotal role in environmental regulation. Corporations
began to construct systematic ways of telling their side of the story.
“Affected industries implemented a wide variety of environmental PR
programs in response to the new environmentalism” (Conley 2006: 26).
Electrical utilities, the aluminum industry, the chemical industry, and the
glass containers industry all utilized issues management to aggressively
preclude the expansion of environmental laws (Conley 2006). Government
regulation was to be avoided because it increased the cost of operations
for corporations (Coombs and Holladay 2011). The strategies developed
by the environmental activists became synthesized into the corporate
practice of issues management (Beder 2002; Coombs and Holladay 2011;
Grefe and Linsky 1995).

Public relations aspect

Issues management has become a sub­discipline within public relations.
Many of the major public relations agencies/consultancies offer issues
management as one of their services. Some, such as Edelman, combine
issues management with crisis communication. Issues management is a
recognized element within the public relations practice. Chapter 4 pro­
vides a more detailed discussion of the practice of public relations as part
of the discussion of how public relations affects society.

Internet Activism: Going Digital

The Internet has been a significant advancement for activism. The Internet
provides communication channels that circumvent the gatekeepers of the
legacy media and allow activists to take their messages directly to their
target audiences. Moreover, the low cost of Internet communication
channels fit with the limited budgets of activist organizations. No longer
were activists dependent on publicity targeting legacy media as the best
alternative for trying to disseminate their messages or to rally people
to  action (Ryan 1991). Various Internet channels provide mechanisms
for  disseminating information, recruiting allies, fundraising, mobilizing

Who Practices Public Relations?

83

supporters, and leveraging corporations to change problematic behaviors
(Coombs and Holladay 2012b). Activists have been at the forefront of inte­
grating Internet communication channels into public relations efforts –
the development of digital public relations. Internet activism can be
divided into pre­ and post­social­media stages because social media added
new dimensions to the process.

In the 1990s, the Internet was instrumental in exposing and reforming
sweatshop conditions in the garment industry, forcing the Ford Motor
Company to recall hundreds of cars and trucks due to a fire hazard, and
pressuring PepsiCo to abandon its holdings in Myanmar (Burma) (Coombs
1998; Heath 1998). Activist groups of all hues, liberal and conservative,
have utilized the Internet. The growth of social media has added to the
Internet activism dynamic. With social media came more communication
channels and new ways that the Internet could be used by activists to
leverage change.

Pre­social­media Internet activism

The American Family Association (AFA) offers an excellent example of
how activists utilized the Internet prior to the explosion of social media.
The AFA is a very conservative organization that seeks to promote and
protect its view of traditional family values. It was founded in 1977 by
Reverend Don Wildmon and claims over 2 million members. The AFA is
attempting to clean up the entertainment industry by pressuring adver­
tisers. It has been able to force a number of companies to stop advertising
on certain television shows with threats of boycotts and the resultant
negative publicity. The list of targets includes Burger King, Clorox, and
S.  C.  Johnson. The AFA has expanded its operations beyond changing
television content to encompass the policies of corporations, to bring
them in line with its own view of traditional family values. This translates
into the AFA attacking corporations it perceives to support a homosexual
agenda. Companies such as Disney and Kraft have felt the wrath of the
AFA for providing medical benefits for same­sex partners (General
Information, 2005). This is where our story begins.

In June of 2005, the AFA called upon people to boycott Ford Motor
Company and its related lines of vehicles. The AFA was seeking to reform
Ford’s pro­homosexual agenda. Ford was a significant sinner in the eyes of
the AFA, for not only did it provide same­sex benefits but it donated

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

84

money to homosexual organizations, helped to sponsor homosexual
events, and had even created advertisements targeted toward homosexual
car buyers. The AFA boycottford.com website noted: “If one looks for the
company which has done the most to affirm and promote the homosex­
ual lifestyle, he would be hard­pressed to find a company which has done
more than Ford Motor Company. While this is hardly known to the gen­
eral population, it is well known by numerous homosexual organiza­
tions.” The AFA planned to make Americans aware and angry through a
campaign conducted largely on the Internet.

The AFA’s boycottford.com site was a compilation of documents expos­
ing and indicting Ford’s pro­homosexual agenda. The evidence included
statements of tolerance from Ford’s internal documents, lists of pro­
homosexual events sponsored by Ford, and links to websites that discuss
and have examples of Ford’s gay­themed advertisements. The extensive
use of links plays to the strength of the Internet: connectivity. People can
easily access and navigate through the “evidence.” Ford did not deny any
of the claims. The company is proud that it preaches tolerance internally
and provides same­sex benefits for employees; its sponsorships and adver­
tising is part of an effort to tap into the lucrative gay market. Word of the
boycottford.com website spread rapidly through the Internet. Within
three days, over 700 websites had links to the AFA site. After one week, the
AFA suspended its boycott after meeting with Ford dealers. The Ford deal­
ers were given the deadline of December 1, 2005 for having Ford address
the AFA concerns. If the dealers failed, the boycott would resume.

Critical websites, also known as attack sites, are but one Internet chan­
nel that activists can develop. Other prominent channels include listservs,
discussion groups, and blogs. A listserv is an email list that allows activists
to send an email to everyone on the list. The AFA calls its listserv AFA
Action Alerts. The AFA can tell people when and how to act. The email
and its website contain links to politicians to make it easier for people to
send messages to targeted politicians. People can click and type rather
than search for an address. The easier a course of action is, the more likely
it is that someone will follow it. The AFA message was also posted to dis­
cussion groups about cars, trucks, and politics. People wrote blogs about
the AFA boycott as well. Unfortunately for the AFA, the blogs and discus­
sion postings were mostly supportive of Ford. Still, the AFA action illus­
trates how an array of Internet channels can be mustered in a public
relations campaign that targets a corporation.

Who Practices Public Relations?

85

Granted, the AFA is a large activist organization. However, much
smaller groups have also shaped corporate policies through the Internet.
A website developed by a couple in Georgia facilitated the Ford recall in
the 1990s. A small group of dedicated anti­Myanmar activists were instru­
mental in PepsiCo leaving Myanmar (Coombs 1998). The Internet has the
potential to draw attention and supporters to an issue. There are even
sites dedicated to training activists how to use the Internet for public rela­
tions. Two examples of Internet training for activists can be found at
http://netaction.org/training and http://www.actionpa.org/activism.
News media coverage of their Internet activities only intensifies the effect,
for it drives more people to the websites or postings. Organizations often
change their behaviors rather than face the negative information that
flows on the Internet and finds its way into the mainstream news media.
But using the Internet communication channels is not a guarantee of suc­
cess. There is a massive amount of information on the Internet so it is
easy for messages to go unread. Nevertheless, modern activists are far
from deterred from exploiting its public relations potential.

Post­social media Internet activism

Social media, those Internet channels where users create the content, are
being used to facilitate relationship development between an organization
and its stakeholders, mostly customers. Social media channels are used to
listen to stakeholder concerns and to address those concerns, a traditional
aspect of customer relations. Social media can create an immediacy
between the organization and stakeholders when the channels are used for
two­way communication. Two of the most important social media chan­
nels for relationship building are the social networking site Facebook and
the micro­blog Twitter. Social media outlets are considered a potentially
valuable resource for organizations that actively utilize those channels.

Gianni Versace S.p.A., the luxury Italian fashion company, utilizes Facebook
to engage stakeholders. Versace posts messages on its Facebook page but its
fans are free to post messages as well. However, Versace suspended user
comments in July of 2011 when activists started posting negative comments
about Versace’s connection to sandblasting clothes. Sandblasting is used to
give clothing a distressed look. However, the practice is dangerous for
workers presenting risks for injuries and illness from the silica dust (Presnal
2012). The Clean Clothes Campaign and Labour Behind the Label are the

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

86

two activist groups that spearheaded the attack on Versace’s Facebook page.
Their petition on Change.org, a social petition site, received over 1,200 signa­
tures from around the world requesting Versace to stop the use of sandblast­
ing. In addition, both the Clean Clothes Campaign and Labour Behind the
Label used their websites to promote taking action by placing sandblasting
comments on the Versace Facebook page.

Within a few days of the Facebook attack, Versace’s Tomaso Galli
announced:

Following more recent CCC’s comments on Versace’s practices, the com­
pany decided to study the issue in depth again and concluded, in agreement
with CCC, that it is appropriate to take a proactive stance, and stand against
the practice of sandblasting. Versace has specifically asked every supplier
(and will ask any new supplier as a condition to work with Versace) to
certify that they are not using sandblasting (Hall 2011).

Versace was agreeing with the activists’ request and ending the use of
sandblasting. Disrupting Versace’s use of its Facebook page was sufficient
additional pressure to make the company reconsider the use of sandblast­
ing. This is the new reality of social media. Organizations can use social
media to engage stakeholders but their social media channels then present
a reputational risk. If activists can effectively disrupt an organization’s
social media channel, the social media becomes a reputational threat.
Instead of being a source of relationship and reputation building, the neg­
ative activist messages appearing in the company’s social media serve to
erode relationships and reputations. Additional examples of social media
and Internet activism can be found in Chapter 4.

Public relations aspect

Internet activism exercises influence through the sustained efforts to
shape public thinking. Internet activism uses a variety of traditional and
nontraditional public relations tactics. Traditional tactics include the use
of websites, listservs, and various social media channels. Nontraditional
tactics include boycotts and in­person protests, including flash mobs
facilitated through Internet communication (Coombs and Holladay 2010).
Public relations tactics are used to generate power designed to pressure an

Who Practices Public Relations?

87

organization into changing its behavior. The website is used as the hub for
the public relations effort. The website provides a central location for the
campaign, a reservoir for information and mobilization efforts. The social
media channels connect back to the website providing additional avenues
for people to receive information about the campaign. Internet Contagion
Theory (ICT) explains how these various digital public relations efforts
can be combined to generate power for activists and to pressurize an
organization into changing its behavior (Coombs and Holladay 2012b).

As with earlier public relations developments, activists have been ahead
of corporations in the use of digital public relations. Activists consistently
are early adopters of websites, discussion groups, and various social media
channels to disseminate information, recruit members, mobilize support­
ers, and solicit donations (Hands 2011). Corporations have felt the effects
of digital public relations from activists and are slowly learning to use
these same digital public relations tactics.

Labor Unions and Public Relations

The public relations­related history of labor unions in the United States
largely parallels that of activists. The struggle between labor and manage­
ment infuses the history of public relations (Cutlip et al. 1994). Unions
were first formed in the early nineteenth century. To recruit and inform
their members they needed means of communication, so many of them
printed their own magazines and newsletters. These early days were
marked by bloody confrontations between labor and management.
The Great Railroad Strike of 1887 resulted in 16 strikers being killed. The
Homestead Strike of 1892 (at a steel plant near Pittsburg) was a four­
month battle between labor on one side and the Pinkerton guards and
local law enforcement on the other. Unions were fighting to improve the
horrific working conditions. Safety and sanitation did not even rise to the
level of an afterthought at this time (Manheim 2001).

The 1900s witnessed a shift from warfare to negotiation, although
violence still did occur. An example is the Ludlow Massacre. Early in 1914,
union members were on strike against the Colorado Fuel and Iron
Company. They and their families were living in a tent city outside of
Ludlow, Colorado, forced to stay outside the town because the company

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

88

owned the towns. Tension was high since the strike had lasted much
longer than expected. In April, National Guardsmen fired on the tents,
killing two women and 11 children (Raucher 1968). Working conditions
remained poor for employees. Another example is the Waist factory fire
of 1911. A total of 145 men and women, mostly women, died when the
Triangle Waist Companies shirtwaist­making facility in New York City
caught fire. Some were smothered, some suffocated, and some jumped to
their deaths (Echoes from the triangle fire, 1911). The fire attracted media
attention and reinforced the idea that working conditions in factories
often endangered the health and safety of employees.

The passage of the Railroad Labor Act guaranteed labor the right to
organize and to bargain. More negotiation began to occur as this and
other legislation protected the rights of unions. Labor unions experienced
their golden age between 1933 and 1955, reaching the height of their
political and economic influence (Manheim 2001).

Since the late 1950s, labor unions have waned in numbers and power
in  the United States. The decline is epitomized by the Professional Air
Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) strike in 1981. President Reagan
fired the striking members of PATCO, effectively “killing” the union. The
media supported the President by vilifying PATCO. Unions began to shift
tactics from strikes to corporate campaigns. A corporate campaign is a
research­based, long­term, and coordinated action that attacks a corpora­
tion’s reputation in order to change its behavior. Corporate campaigns are
a mix of media advocacy (publicity), boycotts, and attempts to influence
the votes of shareholders (Manheim 1987). The work of many activist
groups today can be described as corporate campaigns.

Public relations aspect

From their inception in the United States, labor unions realized the value
of public relations. The early confrontations with management were
designed to, and did, elicit public sympathy for the workers. Today, unions
join with many activists in corporate campaigns. Corporate campaigns are
public relations. Various channels are used to reach stakeholders and
change their perceptions of a corporation, that is, to erode its reputation.
Moreover, labor unions have long used internal public relations to garner

Who Practices Public Relations?

89

and to retain members. While we present them separately, unions and
activists share many elements. Their histories are interwoven into the tap­
estry that is the history of public relations, and a result, we group unions
with social activists in our expanded view of who practices public
relations.

Conclusion

Social activists did not magically become public relations practitioners in
the 1990s. In reality, social activists were practicing public relations before
large corporations existed. The public relations work of social activists
spurred the growth of corporate public relations. Social activists, like any
stakeholder, can utilize communication in their efforts to influence
organizations and other stakeholders, that is, to manage mutually influen­
tial relationships. Any actor in the complex web of relations that includes
organizations can practice public relations. We should examine the full
realm of what constitutes public relations, not just the more traditional
communication tactics organizations use to manage their mutually
influential relationships. Moving beyond corporate­centric views and
broadening the scope of who practices public relations enriches both the
history and practice of public relations.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society, Second Edition.
W. Timothy Coombs and Sherry J. Holladay.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Public Relations Influences Society

4

Thus far we have considered public relations as it involves organizations and
their stakeholders. As part of that discussion, we have noted that public rela­
tions has an effect on society. But what about situations where public relations
is being used specifically to shape society? Public relations plays a very active
role in strategic efforts to change and to prevent change to our society.

This chapter seeks to illuminate how public relations impacts society. A
variety of theoretical frameworks and case studies are utilized to illustrate
the societal effects of public relations. The chapter is divided into four sec­
tions: issues management, social marketing, private politics, and a combi­
nation of the three. Issues management explores the public policy effects
of public relations. Social marketing examines how public information
campaigns shape society by altering behaviors. Private politics detail how
corporate behavior is changed through private rather than policy action.
Finally, we consider how the three often overlap and coexist.

Issues Management: A Framework of Effects on Public Policy

Issues management is a discipline within public relations that was devel­
oped specifically to address public policy issues. The impetus is derived
from corporations feeling the need for a more integrated and effective

Public Relations Influences Society

91

approach to shaping policy decisions. Issues management was created in
the 1970s to meet that need. The interest in issues management extends
beyond corporations. Organizations (any collective) have a need to be
proactive, not reactive, in their interactions with the environment (ele­
ments outside of the organization itself ). The environment can either
impede an organization’s ability to operate or facilitate it (Heath and
Nelson 1986). Issues management is a process organizations can employ
to prevent negative developments (problems) and to cultivate a favorable
environment (opportunities).

Definitions of issues management tend to emphasize either the objec­
tives or the process of issues management. The overriding objective in
issues management is participation in the policy making process (Chase
1977, 1980). Issues managers participate in the public policy process in
order to influence the development of issues salient to their organizations.
Issues are defined as “unsettled matters which are ready for decision”
( Jones and Chase 1979: 11). By affecting the issue, the issues manager
hopes to affect the public policies that emanate from it. The goal of this
participation is to have the public policy question decided in a manner that
is favorable to the issues manager.

A process definition of issues management lists the steps involved in
the issues management process. The Chase–Jones Process Model, the
most influential issues management model, has five steps: (1) issue iden­
tification, (2) issue analysis, (3) issue change strategy option, (4) issue
action program, and (5) evaluation. Issue identification centers on detect­
ing issues relevant to an organization. The issues manager scans the envi­
ronment to locate emerging issues. Once located, an issues manager
must predict the possible impact the issue might have on the organi­
zation. Issue analysis involves researching the issues in order to create
a final prioritization. With research, an issues manager is better able to
predict how the issue might impact on the organization. Using this
impact assessment, a final prioritized list of issues is assembled. A prior­
itized list is necessary because issues managers can only address one or
two issues at a time. The issue change strategy option centers on select­
ing the most feasible and practical strategy for responding. The issue
action program involves communicating about the issue to various
stakeholders. The stakeholders are sent messages tailored to their needs
and through communication channels they utilize. Evaluation of the
results is a matter of determining the effects of the issues management

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

92

effort. Success is measured by how closely the actual outcome matches
the intended outcome ( Jones and Chase 1979).

The objectives and process definitions can be fused into a working
definition of issues management. We define issues management as the
identification or creation of issues and the application of systematic procedures
designed to influence the issue’s resolution in a manner favorable to the issues
manager. This definition captures the two critical features of issues man­
agement. First, the definition identifies issues management as a specific
set of principles. “Systematic procedures” implies that issues manage­
ment has its own guiding tenets; it is not some unplanned venture. Second,
the definition identifies the objective of issues management, the resolu­
tion of policy issues.

A weakness in the Chase–Jones Process Model is that it neglects how
communication is utilized to manage issues/influence the policy making
process. Crable and Vibbert (1985) extended the work of Jones and Chase
with the Catalytic Model of issues management. The Catalytic Model is
important because it focuses on the role of communication in influencing
public policy. Communication is employed to create arousal. The Catalytic

Issue
identification

Issue
analysis

Issue action
program

Issue change
strategy
option

Evaluation

Figure 4.1 Chase–Jones Model

Public Relations Influences Society

93

Model seeks to increase the number of people who are aware of the issue,
accept the issue as a valid public concern (grant it legitimacy), and support
the preferred policy option for resolving the issue. Communication is
used to spread the word about the issue, create legitimacy, and win sup­
port for the policy proposal.

The Catalytic Model focuses on the status or importance an issue
has for stakeholders, including policy makers. Influence on policy making
is a result of using communication to manage the status of the issue.
An issue has five different status levels that reflect the life cycle of an issue:
(1)  potential, (2)  imminent, (3) current, (4) critical, and (5) dormant.
Communication is used to affect which status, or stage, an issue is at, and
its importance for stakeholders (Crable and Vibbert 1985).

At the potential status, stakeholders begin to show interest in an issue.
The key communicative action is to define the issue. The definition estab­
lishes the boundaries of the issue and can serve to attract or repel stake­
holders to the issue. At the imminent status, additional stakeholders are
beginning to accept the issue. An issue moves beyond the small circle of
people who created the issue. It builds legitimacy through endorsements

Potential
status

Current
status

Critical
status

Imminent
status

Dormant
status

Figure 4.2 Catalytic Model

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

94

and associations with history, tradition, or values. Legitimacy messages
help stakeholders to realize their connection to the issue and accept that it
is important to them. The issue is gaining power but is not widely recog­
nized in society (Crable and Vibbert 1985).

At the current status, the issue is circulated to a wide array of stakehold­
ers. News media coverage or wide Internet exposure are used to reach the
current status. This status is marked by awareness of an issue and the
issues manager’s side of the issue (the desired policy option). At the critical
status, there is pressure for a decision to be made. Issue managers use
persuasion to win support for their side of the issue (policy option) and to
pressure government agents into acting on the issue. Once a decision is
made, an issue is resolved and moves to the dormant status. It is resolved
for the time being. An issue remains dormant until someone or group
recognizes its potential and attempts to revive it. But interest can fade at
any point, whatever status levels have been passed, allowing the issue to
slip into dormancy. Communication is a critical factor for keeping people
aroused and interested in the issue. However, opponents of the issue can
craft messages designed to create quiescence so that the issue fades away
(Crable and Vibbert 1985).

The Catalytic Model is about the use of communication to influence
agendas. By increasing awareness and legitimacy, issues managers can
influence the public agenda (what people know about the issue) and the
policy agenda (what the government will act upon). Public relations plays
an active role in issues management and, therefore, in shaping society
through policy decisions. A few case studies will illustrate how this can
be done, and how public relations can be used either to create or to
prevent change.

Issues management will involve conflicting views of how to resolve an
issue. This means two or more people or groups can be trying to manage
the same issue simultaneously. The news media will focus on the “lead”
issues managers for the various sides. In fact, the various sides of an issue
will be composed of coalitions. Coalitions are groups of people who come
together to combine their efforts to influence the process and outcomes.
As the Catalytic Model emphasizes, issues management is often a process
of drawing various people and groups to one’s own side of the issue. The
existence of coalitions reflect the fact that in policy decisions there is
power in numbers. As Heath (1997) notes, power is a function of the num­
ber of people supporting an issue. Hence, issues managers try to recruit

Public Relations Influences Society

95

allies and build coalitions (Heath 1997; Coombs 1998). For example, in the
1990s, the railroad and insurance industries joined forces to combat
national legislation that would permit trucks to be three trailers long.

The remainder of this chapter presents brief case studies that illustrate
this issues management process. They will focus on the primary issues
managers. However, bear in mind that there were other forces at work in
each of the cases.

EPA bans Alar under pressure

Until 1989, Uniroyal manufactured daminozide, a chemical that allows
apples to stay on the trees longer. By staying on the trees longer, the apples
looked better and were easier for growers to harvest. Daminozide was
used for other fruits as well. The trade name for daminozide was Alar. In
1989, the Alar issue burst upon the scene. In a span of a few weeks
Americans went from having no idea that Alar existed to demanding that
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ban its use. Alar was banned
shortly after public relations efforts moved the issue to the front of the
media, public, and policy agendas. The victory came with an unintended
consequence that we will address at the end of the case.

Concern about Alar dates back to the 1970s. Early research indicated
that when daminozide breaks down under heat, such as in processing
fruits, a carcinogen is formed. Traces of Alar were found in samples of
baby food and apple juice during the early 1980s. However, the EPA kept
Alar on the market. There was an issue but not many people knew or
cared about it. Enter the National Resource Defense Council (NRDC).
The NRDC funded and released a study on daminozide titled “Intolerable
risk: pesticides in our children’s food.” The report provided further evi­
dence that daminozide can become a carcinogen when heated.
Admittedly, the levels have to be very high to pose a threat. Fenton
Communications, a public relations firm, was hired by NRDC to help
turn the public against Alar.

The key to the issue management effort was to make Americans aware
of the risk, believe the risk was real, and pressure the EPA for change.
Fenton Communications orchestrated a launch of the NRDC’s report on
February 26, 1989. 60 Minutes featured a piece titled “A is for apple” on the
link between Alar and cancer with a focus on the threat to children. Meryl
Streep and other celebrities appeared on talk shows and spoke before

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

96

Congress to testify about the dangers of Alar, especially for children.
Children were at greater risk because of their smaller body weights and
longer­term exposure to daminozide than adults. A grassroots groups
known as Mothers and Others for Pesticides Limits was created to support
the cause as well. A cancer threat to children was a huge news draw. Very
rapidly people became aware of Alar, believed in its harmfulness, and
wanted EPA action on it.

In March of 1989, the EPA banned the use of Alar. Uniroyal had already
voluntarily ended production of the product. The banning was as much a
response to public outrage as to the cancer threat. The EPA did not feel
Alar was an immediate threat but said that it could pose a risk over time.
Its announcement about Alar stated that the NRDC evidence did not pro­
vide definitive proof that Alar would hurt children immediately. In fact,
the EPA encouraged people to continue eating apples that were exposed
to Alar, although it admitted the concern: “In the last few weeks there has
been a growing public controversy over the potential harmful effects of a
chemical called Alar, which is used by apple growers to retain the crispness
of their fruit as it goes to market” (Negin 1996). This statement seems to
indicate that public pressure was the reason for the ban. The NRDC had
executed a successful issues management effort. Alar had quickly gone
through the critical, current, and – the problem having been resolved –
into dormant status.

Issues have at least two sides. The apple industry opposed the NRDC
efforts, and paid Hill and Knowlton US$1 million to mount a defense. But
this public relations effort was “too little too late.” The NRDC had cap­
tured the attention and minds of the American people. The apple growers
filed a libel suit against the NRDC, CBS, and Fenton Communications.
The case against them was dismissed in 1994. The Alar case then became
a rallying cry for the food industry. News reports included stories about
the Alar “scare” and Alar “hoax.” The result was the development and pas­
sage of food disparagement laws in 13 states. These are also known as
“food libel laws” and were the grounds for the beef industry’s 1998 lawsuit
against Oprah Winfrey. The purpose is to prevent people from saying bad
things about food that could then decrease sales of that food. In these
states, people are limited in their efforts to raise concerns about food
safety. Food safety groups won with Alar but the victory was costly
because it provided the impetus for legislation that reduces the ability to
raise food safety issues (Negin 1996). The Alar issue changed society far

Public Relations Influences Society

97

beyond the banning of a chemical. It has altered the manner in which
many food safety issues must be publicly addressed. It’s clear that public
relations campaigns can have wide and unintended consequences.

AMA’s objection to national health insurance

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act. That legislation was the most significant reform to
healthcare in the United States since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid
in 1965. Prior to this reform, President Clinton had been a champion of
health insurance for all Americans. The issue has been that millions of
Americans have no health insurance and that hurts society. True to the
Catalytic Model, healthcare reform in the United States was not a new
issue but one revived from dormancy on a number of occasions. National
health insurance began as an issue in the 1930s but never moved very far
in the issues management process (Key 1964). It began to attract greater
attention and legitimacy in 1948. In January of that year, President Truman
called upon the country to adopt compulsory national health insurance.
He felt national health insurance was necessary “to protect all our people
equally against . . . ill­health” (Harris 1969: 36). Truman’s re­election in
1948 was a sign of support for national health insurance.

Truman began his attempt to influence policy making with his 1949
State of the Union Address. He restated the need for national health insur­
ance. The poor were not receiving adequate healthcare because they
lacked insurance. Truman outlined his plan in later speeches. National
insurance would make sure all Americans had access to healthcare. The
system would pay physicians but not make them employees of the state
or interfere with how they treated patients. National health insurance was
a way to ensure proper healthcare for all Americans without infringing on
the rights of physicians (Harris 1969). The Truman administration was
trying to build awareness of and support for national health insurance.
The President’s messages made people aware of the issue, gave it legiti­
macy, and persuaded people to support it. Public opinion polls in 1948
showed 58 percent of the American people supported a national health
insurance program. In 1949, Congressional mail ran 2.5 to 1 in support of
the program (Starr 1982).

The American Medical Association (AMA) was not one of the groups
swayed by President Truman’s messages. The AMA decided to oppose

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

98

Truman because the program could reduce physician autonomy. It
asked each member to donate US$25 in order to build a war chest to
fight national health insurance (AMA war chest, 1948). AMA viewed
national health insurance as “socialized medicine”; they believed it was
unnecessary and would reduce, not improve, the quality of healthcare
in the United States. The public relations firm of Whitaker & Baxter
was hired to orchestrate the counterattack. The AMA would spend over
one million dollars a year in its efforts to defeat national health insur­
ance (Key 1964; Harris 1969).

The AMA campaign ran during 1949 and 1950. The typical public rela­
tions tactics were used: pamphlets, publicity through the news media, and
speaking programs. The central message was that socialized medicine
was evil. This perspective was presented at a time when socialism was a
very negative term in the United States (Burrow 1963). A successful link
between socialism and national health insurance would sink the program.
Citizens would be aroused to oppose rather than support it.

The pamphlets are a prime example of the socialized medicine angle.
The most widely circulated pamphlet was “The voluntary way is the
American way.” It was 15 pages long and followed a question and answer
format. Here is a sample text:

Q. Who is for Compulsory Health Insurance?
A. The Federal Security Administration. The President. All who seri­

ously believe in a Socialistic State. Every leftwing organization in
America …The Communist Party.

Q. Would socialized medicine lead to socialization of other phases of
American life?

A. Lenin thought so. He declared: “Socialized medicine is the keystone to
the arch of the socialist state.” (Starr 1982: 43–4)

Truth was not the issue. The quotation from Lenin has never been found
to exist. The purpose of the public relations tactic was to link national
health insurance to socialism.

The news media were willing to follow the publicity materials gener­
ated by the AMA effort. Press releases, “neutral” experts speaking on the
radio, and press conferences echoed that national health insurance was
socialized medicine (Paletz and Entman 1981; Starr 1982). The neutral
experts talked about socialized medicine and the media coverage of the

Public Relations Influences Society

99

issue accepted the socialized medicine frame for national health insurance
(Harris 1969). The media agenda reflected the AMA’s desire to reject the
national heath insurance proposal. A legion of speakers was mobilized to
address community opinion leaders directly. A partial listing of the AMA
speaking tour included 1,200 trade associations, 1,500 Kiwanis clubs, 4,500
Lions clubs, 2,300 Rotary clubs, and 9,000 YMCA city associations (Burrow
1963). The speakers program served to amplify and reinforce the medi­
ated messages about socialized medicine.

We all know how the story ends. The United States still has a problem
with people lacking health insurance. By the end of 1949, public opinion
polls found that only 39 percent favored national health insurance, well
down from the 58 percent just the year before. By 1950, Congressional
mail had shifted from support of the program to 4 to 1 against national
health insurance (Key 1964; Starr 1982). The public agenda had been influ­
enced to oppose national health insurance. The national health insurance
program was repeatedly voted down in Congress. The evidence suggests
that the AMA’s success in labeling national health insurance as socialized
medicine significantly prevented the policy making process. Public rela­
tions was part of the reason the United States did not adopt a national
health insurance program and still has not to this day.

Local battles: retailing and healthcare

The Los Angeles area is a very attractive retail market. Walmart has been
trying to strengthen its position there for a number of years. But it was
dealt a blow in October 2002 when the City Council of Inglewood passed
a ban on building large “box stores.” The ban would not allow construc­
tion of a facility over 155,000 square feet that would sell over 20,000 non­
taxable items like food. Walmart supercenters are over 200,000 square feet
and sell food. The ban was later rescinded under threat of a lawsuit.
Walmart, however, chose to avoid another battle with an unfriendly city
council. Instead, it went to the people: it collected over 6,500 signatures in
support of a ballot initiative, which would, if enough favorable votes were
cast, allow Walmart to build the supercenter (Lucas 2004).

Walmart spent over US$1 million on the campaign to win the vote,
including in it extensive issue advertising. They were opposed by a num­
ber of groups, such as the United Food and Commercial Union, the
Coalition for a Better Inglewood, and various religious organizations.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

100

One rally against the initiative featured the Reverend Jesse Jackson. In
April of 2004 the ballot was held. It failed, with 39.3 percent voting “Yes”
and 60.6 percent voting “No.” Walmart had lost this battle in the war to
enter the Los Angeles area (Buckley 2004).

When we think of hospitals, we typically think of the area general hos­
pital. It is a non­profit institution that provides a variety of services to the
community. General hospitals face many burdens in delivering healthcare
to the community. Of particular note is emergency care. Emergency
rooms are costly to operate since many patients are under­insured or have
no insurance. General hospitals balance the cost of emergency care with
their other services, such as surgeries. Many outpatient surgeries are
“profitable.” The procedures can be performed for less than what insur­
ance will pay. These “profits” are used to offset losses in areas such as
emergency services and psychiatric care, and to provide community
health outreach programs.

A Free­standing Ambulatory Surgery Center (FASC) is a growing kind
of profitable healthcare service. FASCs are also known as “niche hospi­
tals” and “surgicenters.” They are operated by owner physicians, and pro­
vide only selected outpatient surgery and can be highly selective in their
patients. By limiting themselves to surgical procedures that are profitable
and patients that are fully insured, a FASC can turn in a nice profit for the
investors. The problem is that general hospitals suffer when a FASC
appears in town. The general hospital will suffer a drop in revenue as the
“profitable” procedures are drawn away while they continue to absorb the
cost of emergency care and treating the under­insured and uninsured.
The result is often cuts in services provided, in community outreach, and
in staff by the general hospital.

In 2003, Sarah Bush Lincoln Health System was faced with the prospect
of a FASC opening near its facility in Mattoon, Illinois. Sarah Bush admin­
istrators knew they would be fighting a two­front battle. The first front
was the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board. This body regulates the
building of new healthcare facilities to prevent over­providing healthcare
to a geographic area. This battle would involve financial and health ser­
vices analysis. The second front was the patient base of Sarah Bush. Sarah
Bush was going to publicly oppose the building of the new FASC.
However, local residents would be told by FASC supporters how this facil­
ity would provide competition, better care, and even lower healthcare
costs. There would be a battle for local opinion.

Public Relations Influences Society

101

The petition to build the FASC was known to Sarah Bush but would not
become public until the official public hearing for the Illinois Health
Facilities Planning Board was announced. That would be a three­ to six­
month time frame. Sarah Bush took the initiative of defining the issue
early. The center was defined as a threat and not a benefit to local health­
care. It would exploit their advantage of selective patient care to drain
money from Sarah Bush. In turn, Sarah Bush would be forced to end
much of its extensive community outreach programs such as dental care
for children. The well­documented negative effects of a FASC on general
hospitals were used to support their definition of the situation. Employees
were briefed so that they could explain the issue to those who might ask
about it. Sarah Bush used advertisements, direct mail, local speaking
engagements, and newspaper interviews (the area has no local television
stations) to explain the problems. Employees and community supporters
wore maroon ribbons, the color of Sarah Bush. The local newspaper sup­
ported Sarah Bush in its opposition to the FASC.

A good sign for Sarah Bush was the actual public hearing. Anyone in
the community could speak. Those speaking for the FASC were the physi­
cians hoping to invest in the center. Those speaking for Sarah Bush were a
“who’s who” of local political, business, and community leaders. The
news coverage and support for Sarah Bush suggest the hospital won the
battle for community opinion. It won with the Illinois Health Facilities
Planning Board as well. The Board ruled there was no need for an addi­
tional healthcare facility in the area. Public relations had played an impor­
tant role in Sarah Bush’s effort to defeat the FASC and to maintain the
support of the local community.

Shaping Public Behavior

Public relations can be used to shape public behaviors and attitudes apart
from the policy process. Most of these efforts are a form of social market­
ing. Underlying most social marketing is the process of moving people
from awareness to action, much as in issues management. McGuire (1981)
has identified six basic steps in social marketing: (1) presentation, target is
exposed to the message; (2) attention, target pays attention to the mes­
sage; (3) comprehension, target can understand the message; (4) yielding,

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

102

the target accepts the message/attitude change; (5) retention, the target
remembers the message; and (6) action, target engages in the desired
behavior. This is a logical sequence. People are unlikely to change a behav­
ior if they cannot remember why it should be changed. People are unlikely
to remember a message if they disagree with it. People are unlikely to
agree with a message if they do not understand it. People cannot under­
stand a message they do not attend to and will not attend to a message
unless they are exposed to it.

Unlike issues management, there typically are not “sides” in social mar­
keting. People do not openly oppose most efforts designed to improve
society. The opponents are individuals who are skilled at resisting persua­
sive messages. People can avoid them, ignore, misinterpret them, reject
them, or choose not to change behaviors. For example, even with laws
and campaigns, many people still do not wear seat belts. The challenge is
to break through these defenses and develop the desired target behavior.

Kim Witte has refined our understanding of how social marketing mes­
sages shape behaviors by focusing on the area of health risk messages. Her
extended parallel process model (EPPM) synthesizes fear appeal research
to develop an effective means for using fear in persuasive messages. In fact
most social marketing messages employ fear appeals, messages that
arouse fear to induce compliance (Witte et al. 2001). People who receive a
message make an appraisal about the threat and the efficacy of the recom­
mendations (i.e. ways to address the threat). For the threat, people deter­
mine if the threat is relevant to them (whether they are susceptible to the
risk) and whether or not it is significant (the risk is of significant harm).
Why should they bother if the risk is unrelated to them or is insignificant?
Perceived efficacy involves both response efficacy and self­efficacy. The
belief that the requested behavior will work (be effective) is referred to as
“response efficacy.” “Self­efficacy” refers to the belief that they can per­
form the behavior. To be motivated to act, people must perceive both
response efficacy and self­efficacy.

The appraisal of threat and efficacy results in one of three responses:
(1) no response, (2) danger control response, or (3) fear control response.
If the threat is irrelevant or minor, there is no response. If people decide
the threat is relevant and significant, fear should move them to action. If
people perceive response efficacy to be high, they accept the message and
act to control the danger or risk; this is a “protection motivation response.”
In contrast, the defensive motivation response is a rejection of the

Public Relations Influences Society

103

message. In this case, people perceive that they themselves cannot prevent
the danger (i.e. they have low self­efficacy), or doubt that acting as recom­
mended would avert the threat in any case; they believe there is no use in
controlling the danger. They might distort the message (i.e. use selective
attention) or attempt to control their fear (the defensive motivation) by
ignoring, denying, or discrediting the message (saying that it is trying to
manipulate them) (Witte et al. 2001).

Campaigns to address social issues rely on some combination of educa­
tion, engineering, and enforcement to succeed. Education is the most
obvious part for public relations. Public information campaigns educate
people about dangers and ways to remove those dangers from their lives.
An example would be knowing that wearing a seat belt increases your
chances of surviving an automobile accident. Engineering attempts to
create an environment where people will face fewer risks. Air bags in cars
are an example of engineering as are guardrails on highways. Finally,
enforcement is composed of laws and regulations designed to protect
people. Laws requiring the use of seat belts would be an example of
enforcement. While recognizing any public information campaign mixes
the three E’s (education, engineering, and enforcement), we will focus on
education because it most overtly entails public relations.

Keep America Beautiful

In 1953, volunteers formed the Keep America Beautiful organization in
order to improve the appearance of local communities. In 1961, the Ad
Council began working with the organization. It provided free expertise
in developing social marketing campaigns (or public information cam­
paigns). The Keep America Beautiful campaign focused on pollution. The
idea was to create awareness of how litter and other pollution were dam­
aging the environment and how individuals had a responsibility to help
solve the problem. The campaign needed to combat negative attitudes
and behaviors that led to pollution.

There was some success with the early “Suzy Spotless” messages. Suzy
scolded people for littering. For two straight years the National Litter
Index dropped. The big success was making the environment part of
American values. By the 1980s, environmental concern was established as
a societal value in the United States. Much of the success of this social
marketing effort is linked to the public service announcement (PSA) known

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

104

as the “Crying Indian.” (A PSA can appear in print, posters, or on radio,
television, or the Internet.) This striking visual PSA, of a tearful Native
American surveying the litter around him, increased the number of peo­
ple aware of and concerned about littering. On Earth Day in 1971, a PSA
featuring Native American actor Chief Iron Eyes Cody appeared for the
first time. The tagline line was, “People start pollution. People can stop
it.” Iron Eyes Cody became synonymous with environmental concerns
and Americans moved towards adopting a new value. The message was
simple: do not litter. People could fall in line with that and the growing
importance of the environment in general suggests that they continue to
do so.

At the peak of the campaign, Keep America Beautiful reported receiving
more than 2,000 letters a month from people wanting to take part in their
local efforts. Keep America Beautiful reported that local teams had helped
to reduce litter by as much as 88 percent in 300 communities, 38 states, and
several countries. The success of the Iron Eyes Cody PSA for the anti­litter
campaign led to hundreds of other environmental messages through the
years under the Keep America Beautiful banner (Pollution, 2005). Of course
the campaign also benefited from new anti­littering laws (enforcement) and
the provision of more trash containers for motorists (engineering).

Keep America Beautiful’s efforts followed McGuire’s (1981) progres­
sion. The anti­litter messages were placed in various media outlets as
PSAs and designed to catch the target’s attention. The messages were easy
to comprehend: if you don’t litter pollution is reduced. Americans became
aware that littering was contributing to pollution and seemed to accept
that argument. Iron Eyes Cody helped to make the message memorable.
Ultimately people did seem to change behaviors, since littering declined
around the country. While successful, the campaign did not eliminate all
littering. A campaign will only be effective for part of the target audience.
No campaign can reach all of the people. Campaign planners must be
satisfied with modest success rates.

Witte’s work allows us to delve deeper into the success of Keep America
Beautiful (Witte et al. 2001). For at least part of the target audience, litter
and pollution did generate fear. The threat was relevant and significant.
Moreover, the response efficacy was high. It is easy not to litter and not
littering will help to reduce pollution. Hence, people in the target group
did engage in protection motivation and did stop littering. Others in the
target population kept littering. They could have deemed the threat minor

Public Relations Influences Society

105

or unimportant to them. Another explanation is that the litter bugs did
not think the solution would work so they adopted a defensive motivation
response. However we choose to analyze it, Keep America Beautiful did
help to change American society by altering littering behaviors and help­
ing to instill environmental concerns as a value in America. This success
was a result of the public relations harnessed through social marketing.

Let’s Move

First Lady Michelle Obama decided to make childhood obesity the social issue
she would try to address. Her concerns became the “Let’s Move” campaign,
an effort designed to improve children’s health in a generation by reducing the
childhood obesity problem. The pledge for the initiative encapsulates the key
concerns of exercise and diet. The complete pledge can be found at the Let’s
Move web site. The campaign has five pillars: (1) create a healthy start for kids,
(2) empower parents and caregivers, (3) provide healthy food in schools, (4)
improve access to affordable, healthy food, and (5) increase physical activity
(America’s move, n.d.). The effort seeks to draw children, parents, schools,
local officials, community leaders, chefs, and healthcare providers into the
campaign. For instance, there is an eleven­page action plan just for parents.
Parents are urged to set an example for healthy eating and to encourage fresh
fruit as snacks. The initiative sought to be comprehensive and more than a
simple slogan designed to get children to play more.

The Let’s Move campaign is integrated around a central website. The
website provides resources for all the target audiences, details on healthy
eating and exercise, and steps to take aid in success. There is also back­
ground information on childhood obesity (the problem) and links to other
groups such as the PreventObesity.net social networking site created by
the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Let’s Move takes advantage of
social media with a presence on Facebook, Twitter, Meetup, and YouTube.
There is also a blog, an email list, and a Spanish­language version of the
site. An array of online communication channels are utilized along with
events by ambassadors such as Michelle Obama to get people directly
involved in the campaign.

Let’s Move began February 9, 2010. On its first and second year anni­
versaries questions were raised about its effectiveness. Was Let’s Move
improving the health of children in the United States? The biggest success
in year one was the passage of the Healthy, Hunger­Free Kids Act of 2010.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

106

This act provides government funding for federal school meals and sets
national standards for any food sold in a school, this includes vending
machines. Experts agreed the act is essential to pillar number three that
involves healthy food in schools (Oglivie 2011). However, there was no
clear evidence the campaign had improved the health of children. In year
two, the obesity rate in U.S. children held steady for the first time in years.
A lack of an increase in childhood obesity was taken as a sign of success
for Let’s Move. Also the Healthy, Hunger­Free Kids Act was operating in
thousands of schools and would keep expanding. This means healthier
food for  thousands of students ( Jaslow 2012). Though lacking over­
whelming signs of success, Let’s Move seemed to be making some pro­
gress in achieving its objectives. Experts agree that it will take many years
before the true effects of the campaign on childhood health can be fully
evaluated (Oglivie 2011). More time and analysis of the campaign is
needed to gauge its effect but it has the qualities recommended by
McGuire and by Witte.

Zombie Apocalypse

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is a government agency in the
United States tasked with protecting the public health. The CDC accom­
plishes this task through “health promotion, prevention of disease, injury
and disability, and preparedness for new health threats” (CDC Mission
2010). Disasters are a threat to public health if people are not prepared for
disasters. Since 2003, the U.S. government has been urging people to pre­
pare by encouraging people to create family disaster plans and kits
(Emergency preparedness 2006). In 2011, the CDC decided to encourage
disaster preparedness using a unique angle, zombies.

Zombies are favorite element in popular culture including movies, tel­
evision shows, graphic novels, and video games. In May of 2011, the
CDC posted a blog entitled “Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocalypse.”
The CDC site provided information about how to prepare for a zombie
attack. The material was the information used to create disaster plans
and kits that could be used for any emergency. The message did attract
attention. Visits to the CDC website jumped from 3,000 in a week to
30,000 the day the Zombie Apocalypse was posted eventually crashing
the site. Twitter followers jumped from 12,000 to over 1.2 million is a few
days (Bell 2011). Other agencies in the United States and even Canada

Public Relations Influences Society

107

began to adopt the Zombie approach. In Canada, the zombies were used
to demonstrate and promote the learning of CPR (Adams 2012). While
there is no evidence to prove the increased awareness led to the creation
of more plans, the CDC preparedness message was reaching a larger
and  more varied audience than ever before, especially young people
(Government zombie 2012).

The Zombie Apocalypse has been so popular that it became a regular
element of the CDC’s Internet footprint. As noted by the CDC:

Wonder why Zombies, Zombie Apocalypse, and Zombie Preparedness
continue to live or walk dead on a CDC web site? As it turns out what first
began as a tongue in cheek campaign to engage new audiences with pre­
paredness messages has proven to be a very effective platform. We continue
to reach and engage a wide variety of audiences on all hazards prepared­
ness via Zombie Preparedness; and as our own director, Dr. Ali Khan,
notes, “If you are generally well equipped to deal with a zombie apoca­
lypse you will be prepared for a hurricane, pandemic, earthquake, or ter­
rorist attack.” So please log on, get a kit, make a plan, and be prepared!
(Zombie preparedness 2012).

The materials include a zombie blog, an educators website with materi­
als, zombie preparedness posters to download, a novella, buttons and
widgets for zombie preparedness, and links to the CDCs web materials,
Twitter feed, and Facebook page for more information about
preparedness.

Overall, the blog posting reactions are favorable for the campaign. A
few people were critical of spending money on a “silly” message but most
defended the Zombie Apocalypse and some even took the desired actions.
Here are some sample messages:

If this wasn’t such a waste of taxpayer dollars (and Federal employee time)
it might be funny.

The people who are whining about wasted taxpayer dollars are missing
the fact that 95% + of preparations for zombie apocalypse are useful for
natural or man­made disaster, and that this presentation probably increases
compliance.

It’s rare that you see a federal agency do something clever. Nice market­
ing, and nice work. Clever way to get people to prepare for disasters.
(Zombie preparedness 2012)

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

108

The blog posts are only anecdotal evidence the campaign went beyond
awareness to influence attitudes and behaviors. Still, the Zombie
Apocalypse was highly visible and reached a younger audience, a target
group difficult to reach with preparedness messages.

RED Campaign

Cause or cause­related marketing ties a social issue to the purchase
of  a  product or service. A cause marketing effort has four elements:
(1)  a  product or service, (2) a non­profit that represents a social issue,
(3)  a  corporation, and (4) a partnership that generates revenue. At the
heart of cause marketing is a corporation and a non­profit forming a part­
nership. Their partnership identifies products or service that will be part
of the cause marketing effort. The corporation agrees to pay a certain
percentage of the sales to the non­profit. Hence, consumers can help to
combat a social issue by simply buying a product or service. The non­profit
makes money, the social issue is addressed, consumers receive products or
services, consumers feel good about the purchase, and the corporation
increases sales while improving its reputation. The idea is that everyone
wins in cause marketing. Critics dislike the idea that people believe they
can shop their way to a better world and prefer a more comprehensive
approach to CSR (Rosenman 2007).

The (RED) campaign, originally known as Product (RED), has been
a global cause marketing campaign involving a number of corpora­
tions partnering with the Global Fund to fight AIDS in Africa. The
Global Fund is a non­profit that combats AIDS, tuberculosis, and
malaria. A variety of corporations have agreed to donate a percentage
of their sales of specific products or services to the Global Fund tar­
geted to fight AIDS in Africa. The lineup of corporate sponsors does
change over time. In 2012, the following corporations had a least one
product or service that was (RED): American Express, Apple, Coca­
Cola, Starbucks, Tourneau, and Tous (Partners 2012). Here is how
(RED) works: consumers buy (RED), a percentage of the sales goes to
the Global Fund, the Global Fund uses the money to buy drugs used
to  combat HIV/AIDS in Africa, and people in Africa are given life­
saving medicines (How (RED) works 2012). (RED) began in 2006 with
massive media attention because the musical celebrity Bono was

Public Relations Influences Society

109

promoting the cause. While media attention has dwindled, (RED) con­
tinues its global operation.

The (RED) campaign is not without its critics. While (RED) has gen­
erated millions of dollars for HIV/AIDS medication in Africa, there are
concerns with transparency and marketing. Transparency refers to the
percentage of a sale price that goes to (RED). A common complaint is
that it is difficult to find out how much money for a product or service
goes to (RED). Consumers have complained about the lack of transpar­
ency and their disappointment in discovering the percentage is often
very small. There is also very little information about how much each
partner contributes annually. Marketing involves the rather sizable
amount of money the corporate sponsors spend on promoting their
involvement with (RED). The problem many people see is that
the  HIV/AIDS problem in Africa would have greater funding if the
money for marketing (RED) were simply donated to the Global Fund
(Arnoldy 2007).

Danish researchers Lisa Ann Richey and Stefano Ponte consider
(RED)  to be a type of “brand aid.” Brand Aid is explained as Brand +
Celebrity + Cause. Corporations exploit the suffering of others to make a
profit in the name of corporate social responsibility.

Brand Aid provides an easy solution to current crises in international devel­
opment – one that enables corporations to raise their corporate
social  responsibility (CSR) profile without substantially changing their
normal business practices while consumers engage in low­cost heroism
without meaningfully increasing their awareness of global production­
consumption  relations or the struggles of people who are living with
HIV/AIDS (Richey and Ponte 2011).

Cause marketing allows corporations and consumers to feel good about
themselves while simultaneously distancing themselves from the prob­
lems and solutions. The counter argument is that (RED) has generated
US$195 million for HIV/AIDS in Africa and the programs it has funded
have reached over 14 million people (Results 2012). For any social market­
ing effort, there are winners and losers (Dutta­Bergman 2005). We must
carefully examine the campaigns to assess their overall positive or nega­
tive effects on society.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

110

Initiative Neue Soziale Marktwirtschaft (INSM)

The Initiative Neue Soziale Marktwirtschaft (INSM) (translated into
English “the initiative for a new social market economy”) utilizes public
relations to create a more favorable climate for business in both the public
and policy arenas. The INSM seeks to promote neoliberal policies such as
deregulation and tax cuts for businesses – to have people define the poli­
cies as positive. Refer to Box  4.1 for additional information about
neoliberalism. The group appears to be a social movement driven by con­
cerned citizens. In reality, the INSM is funded by employer associations in
the metal and electrical industries and represents business interests
(Mueller 2007). Public relations is central to the INSM. Here is how the
INSM describes how it works: “uses the possibilities of modern commu­
nication in order to transmit its ordoliberal message to policy makers and
the population. Depending on the topic, the initiative combines classical
advertising, PR and press work as well as online communication” (How
does the INSM work? n.d.). The INSM directly notes public relations in its
statement while the press work and online communication are strong
elements of public relations as well.

Box 4.1 Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism is a loosely structured political economics theory
that promotes the pursuit of business interests through “strong pri­
vate property rights, free markets, and free trade” (Harvey 2005: 2).
Government should help to create and to promote markets but
should not be involved in the regulation of the market. Businesses
must be free of regulations and allowed to pursue their interests
in the market. Neoliberalism agitates for deregulation in societies
that have regulations and pursues privatization of industries.
Governments adopting a neoliberal perspective will support busi­
ness rights over the quality of life for workers and protection of the
environment (Harvey 2005). Neoliberalism supports globalization
efforts through an emphasis on free trade and the need to promote
business interests.

Public Relations Influences Society

111

The INSM is not a true front group. If you go to its website, the INSM
is open in revealing that its primary funding is derived from the metal and
electrical industries (Who supports the INSM? n.d.). However, the INSM
does use public relations tactics that obscure the source of the message.
The INSM has a strong reliance on credible third­party sources from gov­
ernment, business, and think tanks (academics). The third­party sources
create the appearance of non­partisan support for INSM policies and vali­
date the claim that the INSM is an inclusive movement that includes a
strong citizen support element. In addition, the third­party sources are
used to attract media attention and become the de facto face of INSM. The
INSM provides extensive media training for their third­party advocates
and actively works to book their appearances and interviews with various
media outlets (Mueller 2007). The INSM itself notes it uses “prominent
personalities from the economy, the sciences and society as whole” in its
communication efforts (How does the INSM work? n.d.).

The danger is that the public sees the third­party sources pushing the
reforms, not the INSM itself, because the media fail to mention the con­
nection between the two entities (Mueller 2007). By obscuring the source
of the message, the INSM prevents others from understanding the poten­
tial bias in the messages – an effect created by true front groups (Fitzpatrick
and Palenchar 2006). The INSM is using accepted public relations tactics
to promote its agenda through sources perceived to be independent
on the issues. Some non­traditional publicity efforts by the INSM include
creating spoof awards and paying to have their messages written into
soap opera scripts. In 2003 and 2004, the INSM and the newspaper the
Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung (FAS) created spoof awards for
those helping or hindering social reform. The INSM and FAS picked the
nominees and voting was controlled by a jury selected by the sponsors.
“Blocker of the Year” was a person who opposed INSM policies while the
“Reformer of the Year” was a third­party representative of the INSM
(Mueller 2007).

In 2002, the INSM paid about €58,000 to have scripts on the soap opera
Marienhof reflect support for its agenda. The INSM’s effort was revealed
in 2005 creating a minor scandal. INSM leadership expressed regret for the
incident but argued its goal of providing economic education for televi­
sions viewers was valid. The INSM is active online through its website.
One service offered by the website is a section providing educational
materials for teachers. Under the guise of providing educational material

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

112

about economic matters, the INSM presents educational material sup­
portive of their neoliberal agenda (Mueller 2007).

Ulrich Mueller (2007) provides a thorough analysis of the INSM’s pub­
lic relations efforts to promote a neoliberal agenda in Germany. His analy­
sis notes that the INSM learned from social movements how to leverage
the power of public relations. Mueller argues that all interests have a right
to use public relations to present their views. His concern is interest
groups lack transparency through efforts to conceal the actual sources of
public relations messages. This includes efforts to make it appear as
though third­party endorsers are independent when they appear in the
news media. The INSM’s efforts illustrate the dual role of issues manage­
ment in influencing public and policy arenas.

Private Politics

Issues management began with a focus on influencing public policy deci­
sions (Crable and Vibbert 1985; Heath and Nelson 1986; Jones and Chase
1979). Over time that focus expanded to include influencing corporate
behavior directly (e.g., Botan and Taylor 2004; Grunig and Repper 1992;
Heath 2005; Jaques 2006). In other words, activists were now taking their
demands for organizational reforms directly to corporations instead of
trying to establish new governmental requirements for dictating corpo­
rate behavior. Corporations have been amenable to the shift because self­
regulation is preferable to government regulation. Self­regulation costs
less and allows corporations greater control over the details of the regula­
tion (Coombs and Holladay 2011). Political scientists refer to the shift
from public policy directly to corporate behaviors as private politics.

Private politics represent a shift in the locus of constraints on corporate
activity. The shift is, from the government to the corporation itself,
encouraged or compelled by activists groups such as non­government
organizations (NGOs). It has been argued that activists have consciously
shifted from the governmental to the private arena to achieve their goals
(Diermeier 2007). Baron (2003) describes private politics as follows:
“A  private­politics campaign could have as components the selection of
the  target, direct action against the firm, communication with the
public,  initiation of a boycott, and bargaining” (p. 34). It is clear that

Public Relations Influences Society

113

communication, with an emphasis on public relations, is central to private
politics. Public relations researchers have argued for the potential of pub­
lic relations to generate power for activists that can be leveraged to alter
corporate behaviors. Moreover, this power from public relations is
enhanced by the Internet (Coombs 1998; Coombs and Holladay 2012b;
Heath 1998). The effects of private politics can be as simple as a public
commitment to a course of action or as complex as the development
of  specific self­regulatory guidelines monitoring by independent, third­
parties (Baron 2003).

Through private politics, activists can avoid the time, costs, and uncertainty
of efforts to influence public policy and agitate directly for change. While
many activists were desirous of the shift to private politics, there are dangers
in this shift. Corporations also prefer private politics because it is consistent
with the neoliberal principle of self­regulation. Neoliberalism argues against
government intervention in favor of the marketplace. It should be stake­
holders that “regulate” corporations through their actions toward the
organization rather than the government (Harvey 2005). (See Box 4.1 for
more information on neoliberalism.) This is consistent with the idea of the
social license to operate where people accept or approve of a corporation’s
right to operate. Private politics prevent governmental intervention.
Compliance is at the discretion of the corporations. For instance, public
commitments can be ignored and only those corporations making a public
commitment are even tenuously bound to the new constraints. There are no
laws and regulations that constrain all corporations in a particular industry.
Continued compliance is a function of fear that stakeholders will again pun­
ish a corporation if it violates these self­imposed constraints. Private politics
is an interesting arena for illustrating the way public relations can be used to
generate power and to influence corporate behavior.

Private politics hinges upon stakeholders being able to find a leverage
point where they can successfully exert pressure on an organization.
Reputation has become the primary leverage point for stakeholders. In gen­
eral, a reputation is how stakeholders perceive an organization. Reputations
are evaluative and involve stakeholders comparing an orga nization’s actions
to their expectations for how an organization should behave (Rindova and
Fombrun 1998; Wartick 1992). Reputations influence a range of important
behaviors including investment and purchasing behavior. Organizations
acknowledge that reputations are valuable, intangible assets (Alsop 2004;
Davies, Chun, da Silva and Roper 2003; Dowling 2002; Fombrun and van

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

114

Riel 2004). Managers spend considerable time and effort seeking to cultivate
a favorable reputation among their stakeholders. Threats to the reputation
must be taken seriously because they can diminish an organization’s assets.
When stakeholders generate negative comments about organizations in
legacy media and digital media, managers worry about the reputational
damage the negative comments will inflict on the organization (Conway,
Ward, Lewis and Bernhardt 2007; Coombs 2002). Traditional and digital
public relations efforts can be used to create the negative comments. Hence,
if a reputational threat can be eliminated by modifying a problematic behav­
ior, management may change the behavior.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) (a.k.a. sustainability) is increasingly
important in the corporate world. CSR is one dimension of an organiza­
tional reputation (Fombrun 2005). An organization can develop a favorable
reputation in part by demonstrating its commitment to CSR. Stakeholders
that share the values related to a particular CSR issue will view an organiza­
tion favorably when it supports that CSR issue (Bhattacharya and Sen 2004).
For instance, a company that buys Fair Trade merchandise becomes attrac­
tive to customers that value the principles of Fair Trade. A dependence on
CSR to build a corporate reputation creates a vulnerability for private poli­
tics. If stakeholders can reveal an organization is irresponsible when it is
cultivating a reputation as responsible, the stakeholders’ messages can seri­
ously damage the organization’s reputation. Other stakeholders become
upset when they learn an organization is hypocritical about its CSR efforts
and the reputational damage spreads (Coombs 1998, 2012).

Two cases are used to illustrate private politics. The first case examines
the contest between Nestlé and Greenpeace over the sourcing of palm oil
and illustrates public relations’ role in threatening reputations as central in
private politics. The second case reviews the dispute between UK Uncut
and Starbucks over tax payments.

Nestlé and Greenpeace

In private politics, public relations is an important tool in efforts designed
to change corporate behavior. Stakeholders, typically activist groups, seek
to exercise power in order to convince or to force organizations to alter
their behaviors and policies. Public relations is a mechanism stakeholders
can use to generate and to wield power (Coombs and Holladay 2012b).
Greenpeace’s 2010 “Ask Nestlé to give the Rainforests a Break” campaign

Public Relations Influences Society

115

illustrates the important role of public relations and social media in private
politics. The “Ask Nestlé to give the Rainforests a Break” campaign sought
to force Nestlé to shift from irresponsible to responsible sourcing of palm
oil. The Sinar Mas Group was at the center of the problem. Greenpeace
and other groups have documented the Sinar Mas Group’s involvement in
rainforest destruction to produce palm oil. One of the consequences of the
Sinar Mas Group’s irresponsible behavior has been the destruction of
orang­utan habits. Nestlé was irresponsible because a company in its sup­
ply chain was irresponsible (Bhattacharya, Smith, and Palazzo 2010).

Greenpeace launched its campaign in March by releasing a nine­page
digital document online entitled “Caught Red Handed: How Nestlé’s Use
of Palm Oil is having a Devastating Impact on Rainforests, the Climate
and Orang­utans” (Caught 2010). Nestlé defended its practices and
claimed it would have all certified, sustainable palm oil by 2015 (greenEnder
2010). Greenpeace then responded with a video on YouTube. The video
was a parody of a European commercial for Nestlé’s Kit Kat candy bar.
Instead of a chocolate bar, the wrapper contained bloody orang­utan dig­
its. Nestlé reacted by demanding the video be removed. Nestlé’s reaction
increased attention on the video and generated online condemnations for
censorship. People now wanted to see the video that was upsetting Nestlé.
One viewer commented, “Thanks Nestlé – I would’ve never seen this
video if you hadn’t kicked it off YouTube” (Ridings 2010).

The arena for the campaign then shifted to Facebook. Greenpeace
encouraged people to post to Nestlé’s Facebook page asking why the
company would not commit to responsible palm oil sourcing. Many
people posted using an altered Kit Kat logo for their image. The altered
logo read “Killer” instead of “Kit Kat.” Nestlé was losing control of its
Facebook page and intensified the situation by demanding people not
post using the altered logo. Many people took this as another attempt at
censorship. One person posted, “You NEED to change the tone in your
Facebook responses. You’re committing social media suicide” (Leonard
2010). Nestlé ignored this warning and posted: “Oh please… it’s like we’re
censoring everything to allow only positive comments” (Six Painful 2011).
After that response, the Facebook page was completely overrun by people
posting negative comments about Nestlé. The negative comments even
spread to other online channels (Etlinger 2010; Ridings 2010).

Nestlé eventually apologized for being rude on Facebook (Ridings 2010). In
May Nestlé announced it was working with The Forest Trust (TFT) to

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

116

completely reform its palm oil sourcing and to make their supply chain sus­
tainable (Nestlé becomes, 2010). Greenpeace thanked Nestlé for its changes
on its own website and on social media sites. The “Ask Nestlé to give
Rainforests a Break” campaign was declared over but Greenpeace said it
would keep monitoring Nestlé for its palm oil sourcing (Sweet success 2010).
Greenpeace used digital public relations efforts to expose Nestlé actions and
to define them as socially irresponsible. Nestlé’s reputation was being dam­
aged by the intense volume of negative social media comments about the
company. Nestlé escalated the damage by trying to limit messages about its
company. Greenpeace successfully utilized YouTube, its own website, and
Nestlé’s own Facebook page to threaten Nestlé’s reputation – exercise power
through public relations efforts – and to force Nestlé to change how it sourced
palm oil.

Starbucks and UK taxes

In 2012, the UK government was cutting a variety of governmental pro­
grams including those that would be considered social welfare (e.g.,
healthcare, voluntary services, and education) that served disadvantaged
groups. At the same time, sentiment was growing that many corporations
were not paying their fair share of taxes. Eventually, the two ideas became
intertwined. The austerity cuts would not be necessary if corporations
paid more taxes. A Twitter hashtag #ukuncut was used to organize pro­
tests against Vodafone, one of the companies believed to be underpaying
taxes. The hashtag evolved into an organization, UK Uncut, designed to
force corporations to pay their taxes (UK Uncut n.d.). UK Uncut was uti­
lizing private politics as a means of leveraging certain organizations to pay
more taxes. One of the companies on its list was Starbucks.

UK Uncut has labeled Starbucks as a tax dodger and connected
Starbucks’ failure to pay taxes to cuts in programs designed to help women.
Obviously there is no empirical connection but a rhetorical connection
can be made. Starbucks was identified by a Reuters investigation about
companies paying little to no taxes in the UK (Morse 2012). UK Uncut
planned a series of protests against Starbucks that would begin at the end
of November of 2012. The protests were to be held at various Starbucks
stores across the UK. The protests were in­person, direct actions. The
Internet was used to coordinate the protests and provide information on
how to publicize the events (Call out 2012). The UK Uncut website served

Public Relations Influences Society

117

as the hub but various social media channels, such as Twitter and Facebook,
were utilized as well. UK Uncut was utilizing traditional and online public
relations coupled with non­traditional public relations (Coombs and
Holladay 2010) to pressurize Starbucks into paying more taxes.

On December 6, 2012, Starbucks announced it would be paying addi­
tional taxes in the UK. Kris Engskov, the managing director of Starbucks
Coffee UK, announced: “Today, we’re taking action to pay corporation tax
in the United Kingdom– above what is currently required by tax law. Since
Starbucks was founded in 1971, we’ve learned it is vital to listen closely to
our customers – and that acting responsibly makes good business sense”
(Engskov 2012, para. 1).

UK Uncut was unimpressed by the payment offered by Starbucks and
promised to keep applying pressure to Starbucks. Starbucks had paid no
taxes in 2011 and was agreeing to pay £20 million over the next two years
(Starbucks tax row 2012). Here is part of the UK Uncut response: “Offering
to pay some tax if and when it suits you doesn’t stop you being a tax
dodger. This is just a PR stunt straight out of the marketing budget in a
desperate attempt by Starbucks to deflect public pressure – hollow prom­
ises on press releases don’t fund women’s refuges or child benefits” (Over
40 2012). Note the derogatory use of the term “PR” in the statement.

On December 16, 2012, Starbucks unknowingly provided UK Uncut
with a social media­based protest. On that day, Starbucks paid to sponsor
the large video screen above the ice rink at the Natural History Museum
in London. As a social media promotion, Starbucks requested customers
send tweets with the hashtag #spreadthecheer. The tweets were displayed
on the big screen. UK Uncut urged people to use the hashtag to question
Starbucks’ tax situation. The end result was a largely negative stream of
tweets appearing on the screen expressing anger over Starbucks’ tax situa­
tion. To make matters worse, a computer filter designed to prevent inap­
propriate language from appearing on the screen failed resulting in some
family­unfriendly language appearing on the screen. Instead of creating
positive views of the company, Starbucks engaged in damage control:
“We apologise to any visitors who may have been offended by inappropri­
ate messages displayed on the Twitter wall screen at the Natural History
Museum’s ice rink café on Sunday. This was due to a temporary malfunc­
tion with the content filtering system” (Morse 2012). UK Uncut created
yet another situation where it was using public relations in private politics
to pressurize Starbucks into change.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

118

Mixing Policy, Social, and Private Changes: Direct-to-Consumer
Advertising and Big Pharm

For analytic purposes we have separated issues management, private poli­
tics, and social marketing, but clearly the three can overlap. Policy changes
can affect society, social marketing can drive policy changes, and private
politics can be used to avoid the political arena. Seat belts provide an excel­
lent example. Social marketing and policies try to get us to buckle up. The
topic of direct­to­consumer advertising in the pharmaceutical industry is
an excellent illustration of how issues management, private politics, and
social marketing can become intertwined.

The United States and New Zealand are the only two major countries
to allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers.
Direct­to­consumer advertising (DTC) encompasses publicity efforts as
well as advertisements (Moynihan and Cassels 2005). That is the connec­
tion between public relations and DTC. Public relations agencies such
as the Chandler Chicco Agency specialize in healthcare public relations
while large firms such as Edelman and Burston­Marsteller all have
healthcare public relations as a specialty. Part of healthcare public
relations is the promotion of pharmaceuticals. The success of a pharma­
ceutical launch is dependent on press coverage and “buzz” about the
new medicine. Public relations firms carefully craft the media attention
and buzz (Aziz 2004). In 2005 there was a major training event titled
“Pharmaceutical Public Relations and Communications Summit,”
where pharmaceutical companies and public relations agencies could
share ideas.

There is a plethora of evidence that DTC has impacted on society, in both
good and bad ways (Angell 2004). On the positive side, DTC has empow­
ered patients. Patients feel better informed about health issues and feel they
have more choices for treatment. DTC messages raise awareness of disease
and treatments. Both patients and physicians report that DTC leads people
to consult a physician and request treatment, visits that frequently do result
in treatment. Both also report that DTC facilitates patient–physician com­
munication (C. Lewis 2003; Sheehan 2003). Ultimately DTC is helping peo­
ple to realize they have a problem and to seek treatment for that problem.

On the negative side, DTC is helping to create new diseases, a concept
known as disease mongering. Disease mongering occurs when non­medical

Public Relations Influences Society

119

problems become defined and treated as diseases (Mintzes et al. 2005).
Otherwise healthy people are convinced they have a disease and must seek
treatment. The severity and extent of the illness is exaggerated, partly
through public­relations­generated news stories, in order to drive custom­
ers to a product. As Moynihan and Cassels observe, “With a little help
from a headline­hungry media, the latest condition is routinely portrayed
as widespread, severe, and above all, treatable with drugs” (2005: xiv).
Public relations is a key element in efforts to create new diseases. In the
language of public relations and marketing, conditions are being branded.
The communication efforts might rename an old problem or identify an
entirely new disorder (Moynihan and Cassels 2005).

Pharmaceutical companies are taking naturally occurring events, such
as balding or erectile dysfunction, and creating a dire disease (Moynihan
and Cassels 2005). Or problems that could be corrected through diet or
life­style changes are instead cured through chemicals (Angell 2004).
Disease mongering has been divided into four strategies: ordinary pro­
cesses or ailments become medical problems (balding), mild symptoms
are defined as markers of serious problems (irritable bowel syndrome),
personal or social problems become medical concerns (shyness), and a
naturally occurring risk becomes a disease (osteoporosis). A driving force
in all four is the public relations aspect of DTC. News media coverage
amplifies the advertisements to create greater awareness and fear of the
“disease” (Moynihan et al. 2002).

DTC becomes a variety of social marketing that fits perfectly into
Witte’s EPPM model (Witte et al. 2001). The fear of the new disease
becomes a motivator. People will become patients if they feel the disease
affects them and is serious enough to warrant attention. If patients believe
the media and advertisements, they ask for the medication because they
believe the drug will work (response efficacy) and they are more able
to take a medicine than make more complicated life­style changes (self­
efficacy). Social marketing efforts purport to find problems and try to
solve them. DTC, akin to the Catalytic Model, creates the disease and so
the need to fight it. In reality, social marketing often creates or defines
situations as problems that require attention. This is how DTC is in effect
a form of social marketing.

Another negative aspect of DTC is the one­sided nature of the mes­
sages. Even with FDA regulations, DTC advertising still utilizes spin. The
benefits of the drug are emphasized while the harmful side effects are

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

120

downplayed. Against this, the FDA uses around only thirty people to eval­
uate around 2,000 DTC messages a year. Often a campaign ends before a
complaint letter can be issued by the FDA (Angell 2004). Even the U.S.
government has recognized that this is problematic (GAO, 2000). The
Vioxx problem brought the issue of risk and DTC to national attention. In
2004, the drug Vioxx was recalled because of a previously undetected neg­
ative side effect on the human heart. Millions of people had taken or were
taking Vioxx when it was recalled. Consumers wanted to know why the
risk was not known earlier and why the FDA had let this happen. This is
where public relations, via issues management, is called upon.

Congress and the FDA were under public pressure to act. DTC has
become an issue that various groups are trying to manage. How could
pharmaceuticals be made safer? Both sides viewed DTC as a concern.
Senator Bill Frist (Republican, Tennessee), a physician, issued a call in
2005 for no DTC to be done for the first two years of a new product. This
time period would allow unknown risks to emerge before the drug went
into wider circulation, for DTC does increase the prescription rate for a
drug (C. Lewis 2003). The FDA began assessing the need for greater over­
sight and has proposed the development of the “Drug Watch” website
(Guidance, 2005). The website would list any drug that the FDA is inves­
tigating for a serious side effect. As with Vioxx, a serious side effect often
emerges after a drug is introduced to the market. Patients would then
know when a medication was being investigated and what the side effects
might be. In 2005, for instance, there were reports linking Viagra to a
specific type of blindness (Reports of blindness, 2005). The argument is
that patients need information when making decisions about medica­
tions. The Drug Watch site would offer another form of information to
complement and perhaps counterbalance DTC messages. Only side
effects that posed a significant health threat would appear on the Drug
Watch site (Guidance, 2005).

Not surprisingly, the pharmaceutical industry was less than enthusias­
tic about the Drug Watch website proposal. The industry contends that
patients would not understand the information and be scared for no real
reason. These are the same arguments critics level against DTC. Patients
do not fully understand the information and they could be scared into
seeking a medication. Underlying the reason to support DTC and the
Drug Watch website is the marketplace of ideas. Patients should be
exposed to all relevant information when trying to make a decision.

Public Relations Influences Society

121

The pharmaceutical industry has responded with a time­honored issues
management technique: self­regulation. In August of 2005, PhRMA, the
industry association for major pharmaceutical manufacturers, announced
a new fifteen point “Guiding Principles” document for DTC. Most of the
principles repeat existing FDA regulations such as that DTC information
should be accurate and not misleading. New measures included educa­
ting physicians prior to a DTC campaign and excluding DTC messages
in  media targeted to age­inappropriate audiences (PhRMA Guiding
Principles, 2005). Most of the major pharmaceutical companies publicly
endorsed the plan. This self­regulation is a private political effort designed
to prevent political action. Below are some sample support messages.

PFIZER INC.
Pfizer Inc. strongly supports PhRMA’s direct­to­consumer advertising prin­
ciples. Pfizer is especially pleased with the unambiguous commitment of
these principles to better meet patients’ needs with improved communica­
tion of risks and benefits, which will enhance the industry’s ongoing efforts
to raise disease awareness, educate the public about prescription medicines
and treatment options, and motivate patients to talk with their physicians
regarding health concerns. (Pfizer Statement, 2005)

WYETH
Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, a division of Wyeth (NYSE:WYE), supports the
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) Guiding
Principles for direct­to­consumer advertising, which were unveiled at the
American Legislative Exchange Council’s 32nd Annual Meeting today in
Dallas, Texas.

Like PhRMA, Wyeth believes that direct­to­consumer advertising pro­
vides value, particularly when it provides education about healthcare con­
ditions and their treatment options and encourages dialogue between
patients and their physicians,” says Bernard Poussot, President, Wyeth
Pharmaceuticals. (Wyeth support PhRMA, 2005)

Self­regulation is a strategy that directly links private politics and issues
management. The idea is that if an industry regulates itself (private politics
inspired by neoliberalism), there is no reason for the government to get
involved (traditional issues management). The pharmaceutical companies
are fixing the DTC problems that Frist and the FDA are so concerned
about. The self­regulations must be created and promoted through public

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

122

relations. PhRMA had a media blitz with the new principles supported
by  the comments from its prominent members. The self­regulation is
an attempt to prevent change to society. Only time will tell if the issues
management effort will be effective. Oddly, the issue was created by the
pharmaceutical industry itself through some abuses and unintended
consequences of DTC. The social marketing of diseases prompted the call
to regulate this activity.

Conclusion

In the first three chapters we focused on the microlevel of public relations
with a focus on stakeholders and organizations. In this chapter we moved
to a more macrolevel focus with a concentration on how public relations
can be used to affect society (collections of stakeholders). Public relations
operates on different levels of influence. Some tactics try to influence rela­
tionships among stakeholders while others try to influence societal laws,
values, or actions. Consider an activist group attempting to alter how an
organization operates. The activist group can work with the organization
to instill change. Or it can use the government to force changes as in the
case of the NRDC and Alar. Moreover, microlevel relationships are lever­
aged to create macrolevel changes. The web of relationships is used to
build awareness of and concern for an issue or problem. Relationships
between stakeholders are the raw material from which larger societal
changes are constructed. Stakeholders influence others to recognize and
support the issue or the need to address a social concern.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society, Second Edition.
W. Timothy Coombs and Sherry J. Holladay.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Shifting the View of Public Relations

5

Throughout this book there has been a distinction and a tension drawn
between corporations and stakeholders. The practitioner definition of
public relations as strategic communication places the corporation at
the center of the public relations equation. While the general goal might
be mutually beneficial relationships, public relations uses the mutually
beneficial relationships as a means to achieve other organization ends
such as maximizing profits. In this chapter we shift attention to the other
side of the equation – society as comprised of stakeholders. What does it
really mean for public relations to privilege stakeholders and society?
Globalization, spurred by technological and economic developments, has
provided both the opportunity and the necessity of considering the role
of public relations in creating a better society. More comprehensive
knowledge of events from around the world, ranging from environmen­
tal abuses to human rights concerns to political upheavals compels us to
consider how public relations can aid society.

The societal focus of public relations is explored through two streams
of thought. First, the emerging public relations thought that emphasizes
the role of stakeholders, beyond strategic communication, is examined.
Second, our definition of public relations is revisited and implications for
stakeholders and society considered.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

124

Reconsidering the Positioning of Public Relations: A Societal Focus

Our earlier discussion of the positioning of public relations emphasized
the view that public relations is strategic communication employed by an
organization. This view is consistent with Excellence Theory’s emphasis
on effectiveness (Grunig 1992) and the general relationship management
approach (Ledingham 2005). The strategic communication view of public
relations is consistent with the marketplace of ideas as well. Various groups
employ public relations to make their ideas more competitive in the mar­
ketplace. This is a rather descriptive view of public relations that does not
consider its effects on society. However, there is a complimentary view of
public relations that shifts the focus from strategic communication by cor­
porations to a focus on broader society and stakeholders. We can trace this
conceptualization of public relations through a number of works to its
more complete articulation in the Fully Functioning Society Theory.

The Bled Manifesto, named for the city of Bled, Slovenia, where its
development was instigated, is a statement of how public relations is con­
ceptualized in Europe. The conceptualization was created through a Delphi
research method utilizing 37 experts representing 25 different countries.
This statement summarizes the Bled Manifesto’s view of public relations:

Seen from this standpoint public relations is not just a phenomenon to be
described and defined. It is first of all a strategic process of viewing
an  organization from an “outside” view. Its primary concerns are an
organization’s inclusiveness and its preservation of the “license to operate”.
As marketing is viewing an organization from a market view, public
relations is viewing an organization from a public view (meant as “public
sphere”). We, therefore, like to broaden the relational and communicative
approaches to public relations with or into a public or reflective approach
of which the relational and communicative approaches of public relations
can be seen as parts. (van Ruler and Verĉiĉ 2002: 16)

The Bled Manifesto also notes that public relations varies by culture and
that many countries in Europe do not even use the term public relations
(van Ruler and Verĉiĉ 2002).

The Bled Manifesto shifts attention to an external view of organiza­
tions, grounded in reflective management, and the idea of the license to
operate. The license to operate exists when stakeholders accept that an

Shifting the View of Public Relations

125

organization has a right to exist and be a part of a community or society.
We can think of it as a type of legitimacy an organization earns or is
granted from its stakeholders. A number of other research lines in public
relations have posited a similar view. Reflective management argues that
external views of the organization are critical because they provide unique
insights for managers (e.g., Holmstrom 2004). For examples, Molleda’s
research in Latin America has shown a strong social role for public rela­
tions practitioners. Public relations in Latin America emphasizes commu­
nity interests, the well­being of people, and social transformation (Molleda
2001; Molleda and Ferguson 2004). Even Excellence Theory demonstrates
a concern for the social responsibility of corporations in addition to its
drive for effectiveness (Grunig and Grunig 1996). And the civil society per­
spective contends public relations can be used to build social capital and
make society “a better place to live” (Taylor 2010: 9).

Robert Heath (2006) draws upon the emphasis on stakeholders (soci­
ety) to develop the Fully Functioning Society Theory (FFST). FFST is a
normative theory that prescribes how things should be rather than just
describing how things are. FFST posits that conflicts arise in society and
ideas compete with one another. Public relations can be essential to faci­
litating dialogues by creating “statement and counterstatement, where­
by ideas in public can be refined, vetted, and used for enlightened choice”
(Heath 2006: 109). Public relations gives voice to the competing ideas, a
notion Heath (2001) advanced in his discussion of rhetorical enactment.
However, there is a risk that power inequities can be manifested in public
relations and used to skew the discussion. Management views should not
be privileged over stakeholders. Therefore, management must be reflec­
tive and show a desire to cooperate and to avoid pursuing purely selfish
interests. The role of public relations should be to facilitate participation
and cooperation in order to allow the various groups to co­create mean­
ing. “Society is a complex of collectivities engaged in variously construc­
tive dialogues and power resource distribution through meeting socially
constructed and shared norm­based expectations whereby individuals
seek to make enlightened choice in the face of risk, uncertainty, and
reward/cost ambiguity” (Heath 2006: 107). Public relations should be
used to create structures that allow participative managers to advance
the interests of others in some form of collaborative decision making.

In a sense, FFST is the evolution of the marketplace of ideas. The mar­
ketplace of ideas simply describes how ideas compete in public space.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

126

FFST recognizes that power can corrupt the competition of ideas. Public
relations should be used to help elements of society to engage in produc­
tive efforts to address societal problems (Heath 2006). The word “should”
is what makes FFST normative rather than descriptive. FFST emphasizes
how public relations can be used to improve society while recognizing the
exact opposite can occur when public relations serves only the interests
of  the power elite. In FFST, public relations can be defined as “a force
(through reflective research and best practices) to foster community as
blended relationships, resource distribution, and shared meanings that
advance and yield to enlightened choice” (Heath 2006: 97). The Bled
Manifesto provides an important call to think beyond the descriptive defi­
nitions and conceptualizations of public relations to its effects on society.
FFST captures and synthesizes the various elements in public relations
that focus on stakeholders and the need to respect societal interests. FFST
is a reminder that public relations has the potential to benefit society but
can be abused and be harmful to society as well.

Revisiting the Definition of Public Relations

FFST affords an opportunity to revisit our definition of public relations,
“the management of mutually influential relationships within a web of
relationships comprised of stakeholders and organizations.” The empha­
sis on influence seeks to highlight the role of power in public relations.
Castells (2009) defines power as “the relational capacity that enables a
social actor to influence asymmetrically the decisions of other social
actor(s) in ways that favor the empowered actor’s will, interests, and val­
ues” (p. 10). In Castells’s (2009) view power relationships are naturally
imbalanced but the possibility of resistance to the dominant ideology
always exists. We see public relations as predicated on relationships where
influence is mutual but not equal. The various actors involved in the web
of relationships utilize public relations in attempts to exercise and to resist
power through influence processes. Public relations can be viewed as a
mechanism for the exercise and resistance of power.

Castells (2009) argues that communication plays a central role in power
through “the construction of meaning on the basis of the discourses
through which social actors guide their action” (p. 10). In concordance
with Castells, we view public relations as essentially a medium whereby

Shifting the View of Public Relations

127

discourse is employed in attempts to construct meaning. Affecting the
meanings attached to actions is a method of exercising influence. All of the
extended cases in Chapter 4 illustrate the use of discourse to construct
meaning. A fair critique of our initial definition of public relations is that it
does not include the goal of public relations. For instance, “mutually ben­
eficial relationships” is a common goal associated with contemporary defi­
nitions of public relations. The goal of mutually beneficial relationships
emphasizes the strategic communication nature of public relations and is
a rather general goal. The goal of public relations must be vague so that it
can be adapted and applied to the many sub­specialties that comprise the
field. As noted in Chapter 1, public relations is a rather amorphous prac­
tice. We envision the general goal of public relations to be the construction
of meaning. Various entities utilize public relations in attempts to con­
struct meaning as a way to exercise or resist power.

Another critical aspect of our definition is the web of relationships
comprised of stakeholders and organizations. By noting that stakeholders
and organizations all participate in the web of relationships, we hope to
move away from an organization­centric view of public relations. Public
relations is not viewed as something organizations “do” to stakeholders.
Granted, power in the network typically favors organizations. However,
that is not a reason to continually prioritize the organizational position in
public relations. Stakeholders can utilize public relations to amass power
and to influence organizations and other stakeholders.

Conflict: Exercise and resistance of power through
public relations

The various constituents often find themselves pursuing incompatible
goals resulting in conflict within the web of relationships. Conflict is a
natural element of society and considered an essential factor by some
public relations theories (e.g., Holtzhausen 2012; Pang, Jin and Cameron
2010). The conflict creates an exigency for the exercise of influence.
Constituents attempt to exercise and to resist power, through public rela­
tions, in order to shape meanings. The economic dimension of globaliza­
tion provides an excellent context for examining the stakeholders,
corporations, and the power dynamics within the web of relationships.

The economic dimension of globalization reflects the global incr­
ease  in  economic interrelatedness (Steger 2009). Economies are

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

128

more interconnected through supply chains, investments, and the distri­
bution of goods. Transnational corporations lead the drive for globaliza­
tion as they seek to enhance markets, sales, and profits (Munshi and Kurian
2005; Stenzell 2000). Transnational corporations frequently find support
from government actors. Neoliberal policies adopted by government
actors attempt to remove barriers to commerce thus facilitating globaliza­
tion (Makawana 2006). The more precise term for governmental support
of its businesses is commercial diplomacy, a subset of public diplomacy.

Public diplomacy itself is the sub­field of diplomacy with the strongest
linkage to public relations (Signitzer and Coombs 1992). Public diplomacy
can be defined as “attempts, either public or private, to influence public
opinion abroad” (Manheim 1991: 90). The general target of public diplo­
macy is public opinion in another country: how stakeholders there feel
about one’s own country, or issue or action in it. Public diplomacy seeks
to influence stakeholders in order to affect the behavior of the other coun­
try, particularly its foreign policy decisions (Manheim 1994). Through
issues management, public diplomacy tries to influence policy decisions,
foreign aid allotment, and foreign policy choices. Policy decisions lead to
the laws and regulations created by a country.

Commercial diplomacy can be defined as “an activity conducted by
state representatives with diplomatic status in view of business promotion
between a home and a host country. It aims to encourage business devel­
opment through a series of business promotion and facilitation activities”
(Naray 2008: 2). Government representatives act to influence economic
decisions, such as regulations, in other countries. In other words, govern­
ment officials support business interests in their home country by trying
to manage issues in host countries. The outcome should be economic
gains for corporations in the home country (Kostecki and Naray 2007).
One example has been the controversial efforts of the U.S. government to
support Monsanto and DuPont by pressing other governments to accept
genetically engineered crops (Ludwig 2011). Genetic engineering of food
products is a very contentious issue. As this example illustrates, the corpo­
rations and government actors frequently work in concert to promote the
corporate interests. The two both seek to define globalization as a positive
and natural trend that should be supported.

The primary opposition to globalization is comprised of the anti­
globalization activists. Activists are unique stakeholders because they are
composed of a variety of stakeholders such as customers, community

Shifting the View of Public Relations

129

members, or investors. Moreover, you can have “professional activists”
whose job is to seek societal changes (Coombs and Holladay 2010).
Greenpeace exemplifies the complexity of activists. Greenpeace has per­
manent employees (professional activists) as well as volunteers (other
stakeholders) to support their causes. Thomas (2003) defines activism as
“an attempt to change the behavior of another party through the applica­
tion of concerted power” (p. 129). A common characteristic of activists is
that they attempt to create change through the exercise of influence
(Raymond 2003; Smith and Ferguson 2001).

One problem when discussing activism is the use of terminology. Are
the activists non­governmental organizations (NGOs), private voluntary
organizations (PVOs), or civil society organizations (CSOs)? In reality, an
activist group might be all three or just one. The term non­government
organization (NGO) was created in 1945 through the United Nations. An
NGO is any organization that is not part of the government and can
include both non­profit and for­profit entities. A PVO is a non­govern­
ment organization but must be a non­profit as well and has a general focus
on humanitarian and development concerns (Willetts n.d.; What is, n.d.).
A PVO is an NGO but not all NGOs are PVOs. Civil society organizations
are the third sector, meaning it is neither government nor business. The
underlying idea is that civil society organizations are people uniting to
advance a common interest and exist in the space between the family and
the state (Taylor 2010). An NGO or a PVO might be part of civil society
efforts or they may not; it depends on the mission of the NGO or PVO.

We can complicate matters further when we consider how activists
form coalitions. When activism is global, do we have transnational advo­
cacy networks or global civil society?

PVOs often enter into coalitions to increase their power (Paul 2000).
The Internet has made it easier for PVOs to link up with one another.
This reflects the notion of “power in numbers” discussed in Chapter 4.
Interconnected PVOs are referred to as transnational advocacy networks
(TANs) (Keck and Sikkink 1998). Thirteen PVOs, including the Union of
Concerned Scientists, Humane Society, Sierra Club, and the National
Catholic Rural Life Conference formed a TAN to combat the overuse of
antibiotics in producing food animals. The TAN targeted McDonald’s, the
world’s largest buyer of food animals. It believed that if McDonald’s said
“no” to antibiotics, the animal producers would have to listen. McDonald’s
did indeed draft a “Global Policy on antibiotic use in food animals.”

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

130

The policy included a ban on the use of antibiotics in the poultry used by
McDonald’s (Greider 2003). A TAN had convinced one of the largest cor­
porations in the world to change a significant business practice, again
demonstrating that PVOs can influence corporations.

TANs are further evidence of the global nature of activism. TANs erase
national borders in the development of coalitions, selection of targets, and
choice of issues. They demonstrate the public relations orientation and savvy
of activists. It is through the exchange of information that TANs can form,
and through these pooled power resources that they can persuade corpora­
tions or governments to change their behaviors and policies. When PVOs
combine to form a more influential TAN (Keck and Sikkink 1998), the bal­
ance of power shifts to the benefit of the once­marginalized PVOs. With this
increase in numbers they find that corporations are more willing to listen.

Global civil society, also known as transnational civil society organiza­
tions, are networks of civil society organizations that transcend national
borders and seek to influence the practices of transnational organiza­
tions (e.g., World Trade Organization) and transnational corporations.
Global civil society is often considered the only counterbalance to glo­
balization (Loaner 2011). TANs and global civil society are not mutually
exclusive. A TAN might be a global civil society organization as well,
depending on the nature of its objectives. We will be using the term PVO
as the label for activists.

PVOs address a range of issues and topics. Reviewing a few of them will
provide a flavor for their diversity. The Bretton Woods Project tries to influ­
ence the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF). This PVO
collects and shares information about the activities of these powerful eco­
nomic entities. By sharing information and building coalitions, the Bretton
Woods Project hopes to be a voice for greater transparency for the World
Bank and IMF (About Bretton Woods, n.d.). The International Rivers
Project seeks to aid local communities trying to protect their rivers and
watersheds. It supports local efforts to preserve rivers and ecosystems that
benefit humans and other biological communities (About international,
n.d.). Oxfam is a collection of 12 organizations working in over 100 coun­
tries to develop lasting solutions to poverty and suffering. The organization
believes coalitions enhance power. Oxfam champions economic and social
justice (About us, n.d.). Search for Common Ground is trying to change
how the world approaches conflict. The focus is to shift conflict manage­
ment from adversarial to cooperative approaches (Our mission, n.d.).

Shifting the View of Public Relations

131

PVOs are emerging as important actors in stakeholder networks, and
are playing a larger role in international policy. They have been influential
enough to help shape global agreements on such issues as the environ­
ment, women’s rights, arms control, and the rights of children. PVOs
were instrumental in the adoption of the Montreal Protocol on Substances
Depleting the Ozone Layer of 1987 and the Mine Ban Treaty of 1997.
They are often as important or more important than governments when
it comes to making global policies. Even the United Nations views PVOs
as an important legitimizing force in policy development (Paul 2000).

Corporations recognize the power and influence of PVOs as well, and
international corporations are seeing their policies shaped by them. Often
a PVO is engaged to create new policies in partnership with the corpora­
tion while at other times the PVO uses its power to influence corporate
policies. PVOs draw heavily on their credibility. Edelman’s Trust
Barometer (2013) surveyed global opinion leaders about PVOs and corpo­
rations, including respondents from Europe, Latin America, Asia, and the
United States. PVOs were generally the most trusted institutions, well
ahead of corporations and governments, providing a compelling force for
corporations to partner with PVOs. For instance, Walmart has partnered
with the Environment Defense Fund (EDF) to find ways to become more
environmentally friendly. The first move by the EDF was to have Walmart
reduce packing waste for toys. As Taylor notes, “Partnerships between
NGOs and business organizations are a win–win situation for both par­
ties” (2005: 577). Other PVOs can leverage corporations into changing
their practices. Greenpeace influenced Whirlpool to use environmentally
friendly insulation while the Rainforest Action Network convinced Home
Depot and Lowes not to buy products harvested from Canada’s Great
Bear rainforest. Richard Edelman, president of Edelman Public Relations
is another who has observed that corporations are borrowing credibility
from PVOs (Iritani 2005).

PVOs are built around managing mutually influential relationships. By
leveraging their power, PVOs can alter the course of ships of commerce.
They draw on a wide range of public relations tactics to inform, persuade,
and activate stakeholders and corporations (Taylor 2005), including pro­
tests, websites, email alert systems, advocacy advertising, news releases,
news conferences, and lobbying. PVOs are essentially public relations
entities. These are the forms of communication that can influence corpo­
rations and governments.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

132

Corporations, governments, and PVOs can find themselves in conflict
over issues relating to globalization and corporate social responsibility.
Through issues management, private politics, or a combination of the two,
these stakeholders are trying to influence the policies and actions of the oth­
ers. A quick illustration of this point is the nearly 20­year banana tariff battle
between the EU and Latin American banana producers. The EU imposed
the tariffs to help their former colonies in Africa that grow bananas to be
more competitive within the EU (Miller 2009). The tariffs made the Latin
American bananas less competitive in EU markets because of the higher
prices. Various governments, corporations, and PVOs were involved in
efforts to maintain and to eliminate the tariffs. In December of 2009, the EU
announced the tariffs would be phased out with the final reduction occur­
ring in 2017 (The EU–Latin America 2009). The United States was instru­
mental in creating the change. Dole and Chiquita, two of the top banana
producers in Latin America, are U.S. companies (Miller 2009). Ending the
tariff on bananas is consistent with the neoliberalism policies that foster
globalization. The meaning of the tariffs was shifted from something good
for developing nations growing bananas to an impediment to free trade.

Detox campaign: exercising influence through public relations

The Detox campaign is an excellent way to illustrate how PVOs utilize
public relations in efforts to influence behavior and policies of corpora­
tions and governments. Greenpeace created the Detox campaign to
reduce the problem of toxins entering water supplies around the world
due to their use in the textile industry. Textile manufacturers use toxins
such as phthalates and nonylphenol ethoxyates (NPEs) when creating
clothing for adults and children. One common use of the toxins is in cloth­
ing dyes. The toxins enter the water supplies in the countries where they
are produced and in the countries where they are sold. When used in pro­
duction, the toxins are released into the local water supply. When people
wash their clothes at home, the toxins have another opportunity to enter
their water supply. The toxins present health hazards for humans includ­
ing some being carcinogenic (Hidden consequences, 2012). The toxins
from textiles pose a global threat to water because they are being released
in so many locations. The Greenpeace research found the toxins used in
clothes made in 18 different countries and clothing sold in 27 different
countries covering the continents of Europe, Asia, Australia, Africa, South

Shifting the View of Public Relations

133

America, and North America (Brigden, Labunska, House, Santillo, and
Johnston 2012; Toxic Threads 2012).

The term “textile industry” is rather vague. People are more likely to
know textiles through the brand names of fashion. Brands found to con­
tain toxins include: Zara, Gap, Levi’s, Victoria’s Secret, Tommy Hilfiger,
C&A, Marks & Spencer, Only, Jack & Jones, Vero Moda, Calvin Klein,
Diesel, Benetton, and Armani (Brigden et al. 2012). The brands are global
in reach and are based in a number of different countries. The Detox issue
is global in reach, thus, it demands a global activist effort.

The goal of the Detox campaign is “zero discharge.” Zero discharge
seeks the elimination of toxins by replacing them with safer alternatives.
The Detox campaign works through both issues management and private
politics. Greenpeace is attempting to get governments to adopt regula­
tions that reflect zero discharge for the toxins. However, the Detox cam­
paign is much more active in private politics by harnessing people power.
People can pressure brands by demanding they stop the use of toxins. The
early victories for Detox included convincing Puma, Adidas, Nike, H&M,
Li Ning, and C&A to commit to zero discharge (Toxic Threads 2012).

People pressure is the application of public relations tactics to private
politics. The Detox campaign is a mix of traditional public relations, digi­
tal public relations, and non­traditional public relations. The traditional
public relations tactics include sending news releases to media outlets and
holding press conferences. The digital public relations uses social media, a
website, and email alerts to create awareness, recruit supporters, mobilize
supporters to action, and to solicit donations. For instance, Twitter and
Facebook were used in private politics directed toward H&M. A Twitter
petition calling on H&M to Detox was signed by over 600,000 Twitter
users while people posted questions to H&M’s Facebook page asking why
the company would not Detox.

Non­traditional public relations employs direct actions including stag­
ing protests in front of brand stores which then become YouTube videos
and protest messages. For example, there is a YouTube video of protestors
dancing outside Adidas and Nike stores in many different countries to
bring awareness to the issue and pressure the corporations. H&M was the
target of protest messages. People targeted H&M stores in 12 separate
nations for window stickers. The removable stickers said “Detox our
future” and “Detox our water.” The direct actions are non­traditional pub­
lic relations because they too help to attract legacy media attention and to

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

134

raise awareness among customers at those stores (Clickers 2011). Private
political action, as discussed in Chapter 4, involves harnessing a number
of public relations tactics to pressure corporations by increasing aware­
ness of and support for an issue. Greenpeace has exercised influence by
convincing other actors, including garment companies, that certain chem­
icals should not be used in the textile industry. The meaning of certain
chemicals was changed from something that was acceptable to use to
something that was toxic and to be avoided. Pressure for greater corpo­
rate social responsibility produced commitments to alter harmful impacts
on the environment and people.

The UN places human rights on the corporate agenda

The successes of activist groups demonstrate how public relations can be
used to instigate tangible changes in corporate behaviors that pose a
threat to society. While the use of public relations in the Detox campaign
focused on altering a limited set of practices within the textile industry,
public relations also has the potential to effect change in other areas of
concern to society and contribute to the ideals associated with Heath’s
Fully Functioning Society Theory.

Perhaps no issue in society produces such outrage and visceral reac­
tions as human rights violations. Consider how stakeholders were appalled
and demanded change when they learned about child labor in the gar­
ment industry and the utilization of diamonds to fund violence (blood
diamonds). Addressing this enormously complex social concern may be
the most significant challenge facing public relations. Unfortunately,
human rights violations have always existed and stem from a basic lack of
regard for others’ lives. Critics argue that globalization breeds human
rights abuses. Organizations, including both corporations and govern­
ments, have committed human rights violations, and these violations
often have become institutionalized. So the issue is indeed complex and
difficult to confront.

In spite of the tenure and ubiquity of human rights violations across time
and around the world, the United Nations (UN), formed in 1947 and boast­
ing an international membership, is committed to pressing for respect for
human rights. In addition to its concern for human rights, the UN has deve­
loped the UN Global Compact which identifies three other primary areas
of concern for corporations: labor, the environment, and anti­corruption.

Shifting the View of Public Relations

135

The UN Global Compact’s 10 Principles (see Box 5.1) codify its concerns
about corporate behavior. The UN has worked with its member nations to
encourage corporations to conform to the 10 principles. The UN’s Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, contains 24  articles

Box 5.1 The 10 Principles of UN Global Compact

The UN Global Compact asks companies to embrace, support and
enact, within their sphere of influence, a set of core values in the
areas of human rights, labour standards, the environment and
anti­corruption:

Human Rights
• Principle 1: Businesses should support and respect the protec­

tion of internationally proclaimed human rights
• Principle 2: make sure that they are not complicit in human

rights abuses

Labour
• Principle 3: Businesses should uphold the freedom of associa­

tion and the effective recognition of the right to collective
bargaining

• Principle 4: the elimination of all forms of forced and compul­
sory labour

• Principle 5: the effective abolition of child labour
• Principle 6: the elimination of discrimination in respect of

employment and occupation

Environment
• Principle 7: Businesses should support a precautionary approach

to environmental challenges
• Principle 8: undertake initiatives to promote greater environ­

mental responsibility
• Principle 9: encourage the development and diffusion of envi­

ronmentally friendly technologies

Anti­Corruption
• Principle 10: Businesses should work against corruption in all its

forms, including extortion and bribery (UN, n.d.)

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

136

pertaining to human rights as well. These documents demonstrate the UN’s
ongoing commitment to social justice.

In 2011, the UN further addressed human rights by endorsing the
Guiding Principles for the Implementation of the UN Protect, Respect
and Remedy Framework. The Guiding Principles focus on human rights,
Principle 1 of the UN Global Compact. Box  5.2 provides foundational
principles for the Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights
section of the Guiding Principles. Here is a summary of the Guiding
Principles’ view of the connection between corporation and human
rights: “The responsibility to respect human rights and to thereby not
cause harm is the baseline standard for all companies in all situations.
Companies should exercise due diligence to become aware of, prevent and
address adverse human rights impacts linked to their activities” (UN 2011).
The clear message is that corporations must be cognizant of and respect­
ful of human rights.

The European Commission’s (EC) 2012 endorsement of the Guiding
Principles strengthens the legitimacy of those principles and the role of
the UN in providing a leadership role in protecting human rights. It is
possible that the development of the guiding principles may provoke con­
flict among groups that oppose the UN’s emphasis on human rights.
However, the guiding principles provide a powerful rationale for coop­
eration among governments, corporations, and activists as they pursue
the ideals of the principles. For example, activists who function as the
watchdogs of corporate activities may be in a position to interrogate
practices that violate the principles. No doubt PR should be an integral
part of creating awareness of human rights issues, facilitating coalition
formation, and engaging in conflict management among groups contest­
ing those issues.

The availability of the technology that can be used to document and
broadcast abuses of human rights, including video recording and social
media, may be able to pressure corporations to reform their activities
such as the use of sweatshops and forced labor. Previous success in uncov­
ering human rights abuses to force changes in operations bodes well for
the potential of public relations to make a difference. The Internet pro­
vides the capacities for information sharing, generating public concern
over abuses, and leveraging public outrage to shame corporations and
perhaps prompt government intervention to convince corporations to
modify their behavior. Public relations may be facing its most daunting

Shifting the View of Public Relations

137

Box 5.2 Foundational Principles for the Corporate
Responsibility to Respect Human Rights

Business enterprises should respect human rights. This means that
they should avoid infringing on the human rights of others and
should address adverse human rights impacts with which they are
involved.

The responsibility of business enterprises to respect human
rights refers to internationally recognized human rights – under­
stood, at a minimum, as those expressed in the International Bill of
Human Rights and the principles concerning fundamental rights
set out in the International Labour Organization’s Declaration on
Funda mental Principles and Rights at Work. (p. 13)

The responsibility to respect human rights requires that business
enterprises:
(a) Avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights

impacts through their own activities, and address such impacts
when they occur;

(b) Seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that
are directly linked to their operations, products or services by
their business relationships, even if they have not contributed
to those impacts. (p. 14)

The responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights
applies to all enterprises regardless of their size, sector, operational
context, ownership and structure. Nevertheless, the scale and com­
plexity of the means through which enterprises meet that responsi­
bility may vary according to these factors and with the severity of
the enterprise’s adverse human rights impacts. (p. 15)

In order to meet their responsibility to respect human rights,
business enterprises should have in place policies and processes
appropriate to their size and circumstances, including: (p. 15)
(a) A policy commitment to meet their responsibility to respect

human rights;
(b) A human rights due diligence process to identify, prevent,

mitigate and account for how they address their impacts on
human rights;

(c) Processes to enable the remediation of any adverse
human rights impacts they cause or to which they contrib­
ute. (p. 16)
(Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, 2011)

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

138

challenge as it seeks to create networks to facilitate the development of
relationships among those stakeholders, whether PVOs, governments,
or other stakeholders, aid coalition formation among PVOs, and pressure
for reform from within corporations that are confronted with accusations

On June 16, 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Council
endorsed the Guiding Principles for the Implementation of the UN
“Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework.

The Guiding Principles clarify the meaning of the corporate
responsibility to respect human rights, which is also a key compo­
nent of Global Compact Principle 1, which calls on business to
support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed
human rights.

The SRSG’s framework adopted by the UN Human Rights
Council is relevant to the UN Global Compact, in particular, the
SRSG’s elaboration of corporate responsibility to “respect” human
rights and of “complicity,” which are some of the main concepts in
UN Global Compact Principles 1 and 2.

The work of the SRSG on business and human rights has shown
that all human rights have the potential to be relevant to all busi­
nesses, regardless of sector or country of operation. It also empha­
sizes that respecting human rights means not causing harm to
human rights.

Exercising “due diligence” in identifying and managing human
rights risk will help business respect human rights and avoid com­
plicity in human rights abuse.

The responsibility to respect human rights and to thereby not
cause harm is the baseline standard for all companies in all situa­
tions. Companies should exercise due diligence to become aware
of, prevent and address adverse human rights impacts linked to
their activities.

The due diligence process should consider three sets of factors:
the country contexts in which the companies operates; the poten­
tial and actual human rights impacts resulting from the compa­
ny’s activities; and the relationships connected to those activities.
How far or how deep this process must go will depend on the
circumstances. (UN, 2011)

Shifting the View of Public Relations

139

of abuses. As discussed earlier, the idea that there is power in numbers
applies to the potential of PR to aid change that will benefit society.

FFST posits that the various societal actors should work together,
through public relations, to address human rights. Governments can for­
mulate and enforce policies designed to respect and to protect human
rights. These governmental actions can be supported by corporations
and PVOs that contributed to the development of the new policies.
Public relations can foster the engagement necessary for governments,
corporations, and PVOs to collaborate on human rights policy develop­
ment. Government agencies will employ public relations to create
awareness of news policies among corporations and stakeholders.
Through private politics, stakeholders (including PVOs) and corpora­
tions can engage with one another to reach an agreement on how cor­
porate behavior can support human rights more fully. Again, public
relations can help to facilitate this type of engagement. Corporations
will refer to their human rights actions as part of their CSR communica­
tion. Public relations is an integral part of communicating a corpora­
tion’s CSR actions to stakeholders (Coombs and Holladay 2012c). PVOs
will monitor the corporate CSR communication for accuracy while
some might even serve as endorsers of the corporate behavior by help­
ing to verify a corporation is protecting human rights. PVOs utilize a
variety of public relations tactics for communicating their evaluations of
corporate behavior to other stakeholders, including the government.
Public relations has the potential to play a critical role if governments,
corporations, and PVOs choose a collaborative approach to promoting
and protecting human rights.

Where We Have Been

We began this book by wondering if society really needs public relations.
The answer is still “yes.” Public relations plays a vital role in building and
maintaining the networks of stakeholders and organizations that make
society possible. The connections and corresponding social capital allow
these various actors depicted in Figure 3.1c to engage in mutual influence.
This engagement naturally will be a mix of conflict and cooperation.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

140

The parable of the blind men and the elephant is found in writings
from ancient China and India. The parable involves six blind men led to
meet an elephant. Each feels a different part of the great beast. The men
are then asked what an elephant is. The first man touched its side and
described the elephant as a wall. The second touched the tusk and believed
the elephant to be a spear. The third felt the trunk and thought the
elephant to be a snake. The fourth encountered the knee and believed
the elephant to be a like a tree. The fifth touched the ear and thought the
elephant to be a fan. The sixth man felt the tail and knew the elephant
must be like a rope. The six men then argued about what an elephant is.
One of the morals of this parable is the problem of looking at parts rather
than the whole.

We feel the parable of the blind men and the elephant fits public rela­
tions. People often see bits and pieces of public relations through mass­
media filters. Some see it as a way for corporations to dupe stakeholders,
some as words over substance, some as a mechanism for activists to
change society for the better, and some as a way to improve the health of
a nation. The truth is that public relations can be all of these. We defined
public relations as the management of mutually influential relation­
ships within a web of stakeholder and organizational relationships. The
outcome will not always be positive for stakeholders or even society.
Corporations still have the most power and the exercise of that power can
harm stakeholders. But public relations can also benefit society.

The point is that public relations plays a valuable role in society. A soci­
ety cannot function effectively if the various webs of stakeholder and
organizational relationships are fractured. Yes, at times the relationships
are damaged, sometimes purposefully and through public relations.
However, the relationships can be repaired and public relations has a vital
role in those repair efforts. Public relations is not perfect; but it is an over­
statement to call it a “necessary evil” in society. Like all elements of soci­
ety, it has its good points and its bad points. Public relations is a societal
tool, and tools can be misused. People have used crowbars in robberies
and murders. But that does not mean crowbars are inherently evil. Public
relations provides valuable societal benefits; it helps to maintain the rela­
tionships necessary for the effective functioning of society.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society, Second Edition.
W. Timothy Coombs and Sherry J. Holladay.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

References

About Bretton Woods Project (n.d.). Last accessed March 12, 2013 from http://
www.brettonwoodsproject.org/project/index.shtml.

About international rivers (n.d.). Last accessed March 20, 2013 from http://www.
internationalrivers.org/resources/about­international­rivers­3679.

Adams, J. (2012). Zombies CPR: Zombies teach CPR in new awareness video for
heart and stroke foundation Canada. Last accessed March 12, 2013 from http://
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/10/05/heart­and­stroke­theundea_n_1943670.
html.

Adhikari, R. (2012). User revolt prompts Instagram to retouch photo policies.
Last accessed March 12, 2013 from http://www.technewsworld.com/ rsstory/
76899.html.

Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., and Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs?
An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance,
and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 507–25.

Alinsky, S. D. (1971). Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals.
New York: Random House.

Alsop, R. (2002, January 16). For a company, charitable works are best carried out
discreetly. Wall Street Journal. p. B­1.

Alsop, R. (2004). The 18 Immutable Laws of Corporate Reputation: Creating, Protecting,
and Repairing Your Most Valuable Asset. New York: Free Press.

AMA war chest (1948, December 18). Time, 52: p. 44.
America’s move to raise a healthier generation of kids (n.d.). Last accessed March

12, 2013 from http://www.letsmove.gov/about.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

142

Angell, M. (2004). The Truth about the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and
What to Do about It. New York: Random House.

Anti­Slavery Society (2005). Last accessed March 12, 2013 from http://www.
spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAantislavery.htm.

Arnold, C. A. (1989). Beyond self­interest: Policy entrepreneurs and aid to the
homeless. Policy Studies Journal, 18: 47–66.

Arnoldy, B. (2007). Buy a red T­shirt to fight AIDS. But does it really work?
Last accessed March 12, 2013 from http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0312/
p01s02­wmgn.html.

Aziz, S. (1993). Countries must play to win. The Banker, 143: 12–13.
Aziz, S. (2004, March). Betting on buzz. Pharmaceutical Executive, 24: 118–20.
Baron, D. P. (2003). Private politics. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy,

12(1): 31–66.
Beder, S. 2002. Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism. Melbourne:

Scribe Publications.
Bell, M. (2011). Zombie apocalypse a coup for CDC emergency team. Last accessed

March 12, 2013 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ blogpost/
post/zombie­apocalypse­a­coup­for­the­cdc­emergency­team/2011/05/20/
AFPj3l7G_blog.html.

Bentele, G. (2005). Public sphere (Öffentlickeit). In R. L. Heath (ed.), Encyclopedia
of Public Relations (vol. 2, pp. 706–10). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bergstrom, G. (n.d.). Social Media 101: A revolution in public relations. Last accessed
March 12, 2013 from http://marketing.about.com/od/publicrelation1/a/
social­media­marketing­and­public­relations.htm.

Bhattacharya, C. B., and Sen, S. (2004). Doing better at doing good: When, why,
and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California
Management Review, 47(1): 9–24.

Bhattacharya, C. B., Smith, N. C., and Palazzo, G. (2010). Marketing’s consequences:
Stakeholder marketing and supply chain CSR issues. Business Ethics Quarterly,
20(4): 617–41.

Bishop, R. L. (1988). What newspapers say about public relations. Public Relations
Review, 14: 50–52.

Botan. C., and Taylor, M. (2004). Public relations: The state of the field. Journal of
Communications, 54(4): 645–61.

Bourdieu, P. (1985). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (ed.), Handbook of
Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–58). New York:
Greenwood.

Bowen, S. (2005a). Ethics of public relations. In R. L. Heath (ed.), Encyclopedia of
Public Relations (vol. 1, pp. 294–7). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bowen, S. (2005b). Excellence theory. In R. L. Heath (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public
Relations (vol. 1, pp. 306–8). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

References

143

Bowen, S. (2005c). Symmetry. In R. L. Heath (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public Relations
(vol. 2, pp. 837—9). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brigden, K., Labunska, I., House, E., Santillo, D., and Johnson, P. (2012).
Hazardous chemicals branded textile products on sale in 27 places during
2012. Last accessed March 23, 2013 from http://www.greenpeace.org/
international/Global/international/publications/toxics/Water%202012/
TechnicalReport­06­2012.pdf.

Bronn, P. (2001). Communication managers as strategists? Can they make the
grade? Journal of Communications Management, 5: 313–26.

Bryson, J. M. (2004). What to do when stakeholders matter: Stakeholder
identification analysis techniques. Public Management Review, 6: 21–53.

Buckley, F. (2004, April 7). No smiles for Wal­Mart in California. Last accessed
March 12, 2013 from http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/07/news/fortune500/
walmart_inglewood.

Burrell, G. (1996). Normal science, paradigms, metaphors, discourses and
genealogies of analysis. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, and W. Nord (eds.), Handbook of
Organizational Studies (pp. 642–58). London: Sage.

Burrow, J. G. (1963). AMA: Voice of American Medicine. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.

Call out! (2012). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.ukuncut.org.
uk/blog/call­out 8­dec­refuge­from­the­cuts.

Carroll, A. (1999). Corporate social responsibility. Business and Society, 38(4):
268–96.

Carry A. Nation: “The famous and original bar room smasher” curriculum
packet (2001). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://proxychi.baremetal.
com/november.org/Prohibition/docs/carrie.pdf.

Caught red­handed: How Nestle’s use of palm is having a devastating impact on
rainforests, the climate and orang­utans (2010). Last accessed May 5, 2012 from
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/
caught­red­handed­how­nestle.

Castells, M. (2009). Communication Power. New York: Oxford University Press.
CDC mission (2010). Last accessed March 12, 2013 from http://www.cdc.gov/

about/organization/mission.htm.
Center for Media Literacy (2002–2011). Last accessed March 12, 2013 from

http://www.medialit.org/mediaiteracy­definition­and­more.
Chalmers, J. (2012). Twitter—where does news break? Last accessed March 12,

2013 from http://www.mediamonitors.co.nz/insights/blogs/categories/blog­
global­connections/twitter­where­news­breaks.

Chase, W. H. (1977). Public issue management: The new science. Public Relations
Journal, 33(10): 25–6.

Chase, W. H. (1980, Spring). Issues and policy. Public Relations Quarterly, 25: 5–6.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

144

Christensen, L., Thyssen, O., and Morsing, M. (2011). The polyphony of corporate
social responsibility: Deconstructing accountability and transparency. Paper
presented at the Academy of Management Conference, August 12–16, Montreal,
Canada.

Ciarallo, J. (2010). Kim Kardashian producing PR documentary “The Spindustry.”
Last accessed March 12, 2013 from http://www.mediabistro.com/prnewser/
kim­kardashian­producing­pr­documentary­the­spindustry_b3050.

Clickers and stickers make H&M detox (2011). Last accessed March 12, 2013
from http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/Clickers­
and­Stickers ­Make­HM­Detox.

Conley, J. G., Jr. (2006). Environmentalism contained: A history of corporate responses
to the new environmentalism (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Princeton
University.

Conway, T., Ward, M., Lewis, G. and Bernhardt, A. (2007). Internet crisis potential:
The importance of a strategic approach to marketing communications. Journal
of Marketing Communications, 13(3): 213–28.

Coombs, W. T. (1993). Philosophical underpinnings: Ramifications of a pluralist
paradigm. Public Relations Review, 19: 111–20.

Coombs, W. T. (1998). The Internet as potential equalizer: New leverage for con­
fronting social irresponsibility. Public Relations Review, 24: 289–304.

Coombs, W. T. (2002). Assessing online issue threats: Issue contagions and their
effect on issue prioritization. Journal of Public Affairs, 2: 215–29.

Coombs, W. T. (2010). Sustainability: a new and complex “challenge” for crisis
managers. International Journal of Sustainable Strategic Management, 2(1): 4–16.

Coombs, W. T. and Holladay, S. J. (2010). PR Strategy and Application: Managing
Influence. Malden, MA: Wiley­Blackwell.

Coombs, W. T. and Holladay, S. J. (2011). Self­regulatory discourse: Corrective or
quiescence? Management Communication Quarterly, 25(3): 494–510.

Coombs, W. T. and Holladay, S. J. (2012a). Fringe public relations: How activism
moves critical PR toward the mainstream. Public Relations Review, 38(5): 880–87.

Coombs, W. T. and Holladay, S. J. (2012b). Internet contagion theory 2.0: How
Internet communication channels empower stakeholders. In S. Duhé (ed.),
New Media and Public Relations (2nd edn.) (pp. 21–30). New York: Peter Lang.

Coombs, W. T. and Holladay, S. J. (2012c). Managing Corporate Social Responsibility:
A Communication Approach. Malden, MA: Wiley­Blackwell.

Cooper, R. (1997, Summer). A historical look at the PepsiCo/Burma boycott.
The Boycott Quarterly, 28: 13–15.

CPRS public relations definition (2009). Last accessed March 12, 2013 from
http://www.cprs.ca/aboutus/mission.aspx.

Crable, R. E. and Vibbert, S. L. (1985). Managing issues and influencing public
policy. Public Relations Review, 11: 3–16.

References

145

Crusades (2005). Last accessed March 12, 2013 from http://www.wctu.com/
crusades.html.

Cutlip, S. M. (1994). The Unseen Power: Public Relations. A History. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cutlip, S. M. (1995). Public Relations History: From the 17th to the 20th Century. The
Antecedents. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., and Broom, G. M. (1994). Effective Public Relations,
7th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice­Hall.

Davies, G., Chun, R., da Silva, R. V., and Roper, S. (2003). Corporate Reputation and
Competitiveness. New York: Routledge.

Deibel, T. and Roberts, W. (1976). Culture and Information: Two Foreign Policy
Functions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Dezenhall, E. (2004). Who we are manifesto. Last accessed March 12, 2013 from
http://www.dezenhall.com/about.htm.

Dezenhall, E. (2005). Stopping the attackers in today’s assault culture. Last accessed
March 12, 2013 from http://www.prwatch.org/documents/nichols­ dezenhall.pdf.

Diermeier, D. (2007). Private politics: A research agenda. The Political Economist,
14, 1–2.

Donkin, R. (1997, September 8). A moral stance: Companies can no longer shrug
off the ethical aspects of their business. Financial Times, p. 16.

Dowling, G. (2002). Creating Corporate Reputations: Identity, Image, and Performance.
New York: Oxford University Press.

Downs, A. (1972). Up and down with ecology: The “issue­attention cycle.” The
Public Interest, 29: 39–50.

Dutta­Bergman, M. J. (2005). Theory and practice in health communication
campaigns: A critical interrogation. Health Communication, 18(2): 103–122.

Echoes from the triangle fire, The Ladies’ Garment Worker. Last accessed March 12,
2013 from http://www.mdk12.org/instruction/curriculum/social_studies/
tsw/tsw_echoes.pdf.

Ecuador rejects EU banana tariff proposal (2005, September 13). Last accessed
March 13, 2013 from http://www.redorbit.com/news/international/239287/
ecuador_rejects_eu_banana_tariff_proposal.

Edelman, R. (2012). Our time to lead. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://
www.scribd.com/doc/113833669/Our­Time­to­Lead­by­Richard­Edelman.

Elliott, S. (2011). Redefining public relations in the age of social media. Last accessed
March 13, 2013 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/21/business/media/
redefining­public­relations­in­the­age­of­social­media.html?_r=2&ref=business.

Ellis, B. (2010). New Gap logo ignites firestorm. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from
http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/08/news/companies/gap_logo/index.htm.

Engskov, K. (2012). An open letter from Kris Engskov. Last accessed March 13, 2013
from http://starbucks.co.uk/blog/an­open­letter­from­kris­engskov/1249.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

146

Erika (2010). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.eonline.com/on/
shows/spin_crowd/cast_bios.html.

Etlinger, S. (2010). Brand monitoring: What we can learn from the Nestle­Facebook
crisis. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://horngroup.blogs.com/horn_
group_weblog/2010/03/brand­monitoring­what­we­can­learn­from­the­
nestlefacebook­crisis.html.

Ewen, S. (1996). PR! A Social History of Spin. New York: Basic Books.
Exploring the links between international business and poverty reduction (2005).

Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/
issues/livelihoods/unilever.htm.

Fisher, W. R. (1970). A motive view of communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech,
56: 131–39.

Fitzpatrick, K. R. and Palenchar, M. J. (2006). Disclosing special interests:
Constitutional restrictions on front groups. Journal of Public Relations Research,
18(3): 203–24.

Fombrun, C. J. (2005). A world of reputation research, analysis and thinking –
Building corporate reputation through CSR initiatives: Evolving Standard.
Corporate Reputation Review, 8(1): 7–12.

Fombrun, C. J. and van Riel, C. B. M. (2004). Fame and Fortune: How Successful
Companies Build Winning Reputations. New York: Prentice­Hall/Financial
Times.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Marshfield,
MA: Pittman.

Fulton, S. M. III. (2009). FTC: Bloggers must disclose material connections to
endorsed products. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.betanews.
com/article/FTC­Bloggers­must­disclose­material­connections­to­endorsed­
products/1254761286.

Gandy, O. H., Jr. (1982). Beyond Agenda Setting: Information Subsidies and Public
Policy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

GAO (2000). FDA oversight of direct­to­consumer advertising had limits.
Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03177.
pdf#search=‘gao%20DTC%202000’.

General Information (2005). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.
afa.net.

Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management Code of
Ethics Code of Ethics (n.d.). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.
globalalliancepr.org/website/page/code­ethics.

Going global: Managers’ experiences working with worldwide stakeholders
(2005). Center for Corporate Citizenship. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from
http://www.bcccc.net/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=1082&
grandparentID = 490&parentID = 569.

References

147

Government zombie promos are spread (2012). Last accessed March 13, 2013
from http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/09/07/government­ zombie­
promos­are­spreading.

Gower, K. K. (2006). Truth and transparency. In K. Fitzpatrick and C . Bronstein
(eds.), Ethics in Public Relations: Responsible Advocacy (pp. 89–106). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

greenEnder (2010). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.mizozo.
com/world/03/2010/23/greenpeace­nestl­s­powerbar­k itkat­crunch­
crisp­an….html.

Grefe, E. A. and Linsky, M. (1995). The New Corporate Activism: Harnessing the
Power of Grassroots Tactics for Your Organization. New York: McGraw­Hill.

Greider, W. (2003, July 31). Victory at McDonald’s. The Nation, 277: 8–12.
Grunig, J. E. (1992). Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management.

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grunig, J. E. (2001). Two­way symmetrical public relations: Past, present, and

future. In R. L. Heath (ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (pp. 11–30). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Grunig, J. E. and Grunig, L. A. (1996). Implications of symmetry for a theory of
ethics and social responsibility in public relations. Paper presented at the
International Communication Association, Chicago.

Grunig, J. E. and Hon, L. C. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in
public relations. Last acccessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.institute­
forpr.org/topics/measuring­relationships.

Grunig, J. E. and Hunt, T. (1984). Managing Public Relations. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.

Grunig, J. E. and Repper, F. C. (1992). Strategic management, publics, and issues.
In J. E. Grunig (ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management
(pp. 117–57). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grunig, J. E. and White, J. (1992). The effect of worldviews on public relations
theory and practice. In J. E. Grunig (ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and
Communication Management (pp. 31–64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Guidance: FDA’s “drug watch” for emerging drug safety information (2005, May).
Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/
98fr/05d­0062­gdl0001.pdf.

Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2011). Last accessed
March 13, 2013 from http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/
Guiding PrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf.

Hall, J. (2005, July 3). Dealing with terror: British companies have been chastised by
Kate Hoey, the Labour MP, for not doing enough to ensure that they are not
giving financial succour to Zimbabwe’s repressive regime. Sunday Telegraph, p. 3.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

148

Hall, M. (2011). Versace bans the “killer jeans” sandbasting [sic] technique from
their fashion line. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.thereces­
sionista.com/2011/07/versace­bans­killer­jeans­sandbasting.html.

Hands, J. (2011). @ is for Activism. New York: Pluto Press.
Hanson, D. (2009). Temperance movement groups and leaders in the U.S.

Last  accessed March 15, 2012 http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/
controversies/1124913901.html.

Harris, R. (1969). A Sacred Trust. Baltimore: Penguin.
Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University

Press.
Hazleton, V. and Kennan, W. (2000). Social capital: Reconceptualizing the bottom

line. Corporate Communication, 5(2): 81–86.
Heath, R. L. (1997). Strategic Issues Management: Organizations and Public Policy

Challenges. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Heath, R. L. (1998). New communication technologies: An issues management

point of view. Public Relations Review, 24: 273–88.
Heath, R. L. (2001). A rhetorical enactment rationale for public relations:

The good organization communicating well. In R. L. Heath (ed.), Handbook
of Public Relations (pp. 31–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Heath, R. L. (2005). Issues management. In R. L. Heath (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public
Relations (vol. 1, pp. 460–63). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Heath, R. L. (2006). Onward into the fog: Thoughts on public relations’ research
directions. Journal of Public Relations Review, 18(2): 93–114.

Heath, R. L. and Coombs, W. T. (2006). Today’s Public Relations: An Introduction.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Heath, R. L. and Nelson, R. A. (1986). Issues Management. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Henderson, J. K. (1998). Negative connotations in the use of the term “public

relations” in the print media. Public Relations Review, 22: 45–54.
Hidden consequences: The cost of industrial water pollution on people, planet

profit. Last accessed January 18, 2013 from http://www.greenpeace.org/inter­
national/en/campaigns/toxics/water/hidden­consequences/#1.

Hoffman, A. J. and Ocasio, W. (2001). Not all events are attended equally: Toward
a middle­range theory of industry attention to external events. Organization
Science, 12: 414–34.

Holiday, R. (2012). Trust Me, I’m Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator.
New York: Portfolio.

Holiday, R. (n.d.). You’ve seen it all before. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from
http://trustmeimlying.com.

Holmstrom, S. (2004). The reflective paradigm of public relations. In B. van Ruler
and D. Verĉiĉ (eds.), Public Relations and Communication Management in Europe
(pp. 121–33). Berlin: Monton de Gruyter.

References

149

Holtzhausen, D. R. (2000). Postmodern values in public relations. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 12: 93–114.

Holtzhausen, D. R. (2012). Public Relations as Activism: Postmodern Approaches to
Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge.

Holtzhausen, D. R. and Voto, R. (2002). Resistance from the margins: The
postmodern public relations practitioner as organizational activist. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 14: 57–84.

How does the INSM work (n.d.). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://
www.insm.de/en/The­INSM/the­insm.html.

How (RED) works. (2012). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.
joinred.com/aboutred/how­red­works.

“I will be heard”: Abolitionism in America. (2005). Last accessed March 13, 2013
from http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/abolitionism.

International Association of Business Communicators Code of Ethics for
Professional Communicators (n.d.). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://
www.iabc.com/about/code.htm.

Iritani, E. (2005, February 20). From the street to the inner sanctum. Los Angeles
Times, p. C­1.

Jahansoozi, J. (2006). Organization­stakeholder relationships: Exploring trust and
transparency. Journal of Management Development, 25(10): 942–55.

Jaques, T. (2006). Activist “rules” and the convergence with issues management.
Journal of Communication Management, 10: 407–20.

Jaslow, R. (2012). Let’s move! campaign turns 2: Is it working? Last accessed
March 13, 2013 from http://www.wtsp.com/rss/article/237785/81/Lets­
Move­campaign­turns­2­Is­it­working.

Jones, B. L. and Chase, W. H. (1979). Managing public policy issues. Public
Relations Review, 7: 3–23.

Karp, G. (2010), Aggrieved consumers are leveraging the power of the Internet
and social media to fight back against corporate America. Last accessed
March 13, 2013 from http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010­06­15/business/
ct­biz­0616­kraft­mold­20100615_1_capri­sun­cloth­diapers­ kraft­foods.

Keck, M. E. and Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in
International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Keenan, K. L. (1996, July). Coverage of public relations on network television
news: An exploratory census of content. Paper presented to the Association
for Education in Journalism, Anaheim, CA.

Key, V. O., Jr. (1964). Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups. New York: Thomas Y.
Crowell.

Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown.
Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Problems and opportunities in agenda­setting research.

Journal of Communication, 43(2): 100–27.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

150

Kostecki, M., and Naray, O. (2007). Commercial diplomacy and international
business. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.clingendael.nl/
publications/2007/20070400_cdsp_diplomacy_kostecki_naray.pdf.

Kunczik, M. (1990). Images of Nations and International Public Relations. Bonn:
Friedrich­Ebert­Stiftung.

Kunczik, M. (1994, June). Public diplomacy and public relations advertisements
of foreign countries in Germany: Results of a content analysis. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association,
Sydney, Australia.

Kurtz, H. (2005). Last accessed March 20, 2013 from http://www.wa shingtonpost.
com/wp­dyn/articles/A56330­2005Jan7.html.

Lardinois, F. (2010). The short lifespan of a tweet: Retweets only happen within
the first hour. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://readwrite.
com/2010/09/29/the_short_lifespan_of_a_tweet_retweets_only_happen.

Ledingham, J. A. (2005). Relationship management theory. In R. L. Heath (ed.),
Encyclopedia of Public Relations (vol. 2, pp. 740–45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Legaspi, A. (2012). AFP commits itself to protecting human rights; progressives
skeptical. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.gmanetwork.com/
news/story/284983/news/nation/afp­commits­itself­to­protecting ­human­rights­
progressives­skeptical.

Leitch, S. and Neilson, D. (2001). Bring publics into public relations: New
theoretical frameworks for practice. In R. L. Heath (ed.), Handbook of Public
Relations (pp. 127–38). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lennick, D. and Kiel, F. (2005). Moral Intelligence: Enhancing Business Performance
and Leadership Success. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.

Leonard, A. (2012) Nestle’s brave Facebook flop. Last accessed March 13, 2013
from http://www.salon.com/news/social_media/index.html?story=/tech/
htww/2010/03/19/nestle_s_brave_facebook_flop.

L’Etang, J. (1996). Public relations as diplomacy. In J. L’Etang and M. Pieczka
(eds.), Critical Perspectives in Public Relations (pp. 14–34). London: International
Thomson Business Press.

Lewis, C. (2003). The impact of direct­to­consumer advertising. Last accessed
August 15, 2005 from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1­99148085.html.

Lewis, S. (2003, January). Reputation and corporate responsibility. Last accessed
March 13, 2013 from http://www.mori.com/publications/sl/reputation­and­
csr.pdf.

Loaner, K. (2011). The importance of the global civic society, hence its necessary
sabotaging. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://globalsociology.com/
category/global­civil­society.

Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22:
28–51.

References

151

Lucas, G. (2004, April 4). A Wal­mart in the neighborhood? Inglewood goes to
polls to decide. San Francisco Chronicle, p. A­1.

Ludwig, M. (2011). New WikiLeaks cables show US diplomats promote geneti­
cally engineered crops worldwide. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://
truth­out.org/news/item/2935:new­wikileaks­cables­show­us­diplomats­
promote­genetically­engineered­crops­worldwide.

Makawana, R. (2006). Neoliberalism and economic globalization. Last accessed
March 13, 2013 from http://www.stwr.org/globalization/neoliberalism­ and­
economic­globalization.html.

Manheim, J. B. (1987). A model of agenda dynamics. In M. L. McLaughlin (ed.),
Communication Yearbook, 10: 499–516.

Manheim, J. B. (1991). All the People, All the Time: Strategic Public Communication and
American Politics. New York: M. E. Sharpe.

Manheim, J. B. (1994). Strategic Public Diplomacy and America Foreign Policy: The
Evolution of Influence. New York: Oxford University Press.

Manheim, J. B. (2001). The Death of a Thousand Cuts: Corporate Campaigns and the
Attacks on the Corporation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Marlowe, L. (1998, December 10). Amnesty and Body Shop put their mark on
human rights. The Irish Times, p. 12.

McGinn, D. (2005, November 14). Wal­Mart hits the wall. Last accessed March 13,
2013 from http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2005/11/13/wal­mart­
hits­the­wall.html.

McGuire, W. J. (1981). Theoretical foundations of campaigns. In R. E. Rice and W. J.
Paisley (eds.), Public Communication Campaigns (pp. 41–70). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Meijer, M. M. (2004). Does Success Breed Success? Effects of News and Advertising on
Corporate Reputation. Amsterdam: Aksant Academic Publishers.

Melbourne mandate (2012). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://
melbournemandate.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/melbourne­mandate­ text­
consultation­draft­final.pdf.

Mendelson, B. J. (2012). Social Media is Bullshit. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Miller, D., and Dinan, W. (2008). A Century of Spin: How Public Relations Became the

Cutting Edge of Corporate Power. Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press.
Miller, J. W. (2009). EU ends 16­year banana trade battle. Last accessed March 13,

2013 from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126089161812692163.html.
Mintzes, B., Barer, M. L., Kravitz, R. L., Kazanjian, A., Bassett, K., Lexchin, J.,

Evans, R. G., Pan, R., and Marion, S. A. (2005, February 2). Influence of direct
to consumer pharmaceutical advertising and patients’ requests on prescribing:
Two site cross sectional survey. British Medical Journal, 324: 278–79.

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., and Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder
identification and salience: Defining the principles of who and what really
counts. Academy of Management Review, 22: 853–86.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

152

Morse, F. (2012). Starbucks PR fail at Natural History Museum after
#SpreadTheCheer tweets hijacked. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/17/starbucks­pr­rage­natural­history­
museum_n_2314892.html?ncid=GEP.

Moynihan, R. and Cassels, A. (2005). Selling Sickness: How the World’s Biggest
Pharmaceutical Companies are Turning Us All into Patients. New York: National
Books.

Molleda, J. C. (2001). International paradigms: the Latin American school of pub­
lic relations. Journalism Studies, 2(4): 513–30.

Molleda, J. C. and Ferguson, M. A. (2004). Public relations roles in Brazil:
Hierarchy eclipses gender differences. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16(4):
327–51.

Morse, F. (2012). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.huffingtonpost.
co.uk/2012/12/17/starbucks­pr­rage­natural­history­museum_n_2314892.
html?ncid=GEP.

Moynihan, R., Heath, I., and Henry, D. (2002, April 13). Selling sickness:
The  pharmaceutical industry and disease mongering. British Medical Journal,
324: 886–90.

Muckraking (2005). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.spartacus.
schoolnet.co.uk/Jmuckraking.htm.

Mueller, U. (2007). Manufacturing a neoliberal climate: Recent reform initiatives in
Germany. In W. Dinan and D. Miller (eds.), Thinker Faker Spinner Spy: Corporate
PR and the Assault on Democracy (pp. 155–71). Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press.

Mumby, D. (1988). Communication and Power in Organizations: Discourse, Ideology
and Domination. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

Munshi, D., and Kurian, P. (2005). Imperializing spin cycles: A postcolonial look at
public relations, greenwashing, and the separation of publics. Public Relations
Review, 31(4): 513–20.

Naray, O. (2008). Commercial Diplomacy: a conceptual overview. Conference
paper for the 7th World Conference of TPOs – The Hague, The Netherlands.
Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.intracen.org/uploadedFiles/
intracenorg/Content/Trade_Support_Institutions/TPO_Network/Content/
Conferences/2008/NarayConferencepaper.pdf.

Negin, E. (1996, September/October). The alar “scare” was real; and so is the
“veggie hate” movement. Columbia Journalism Review, 35: 13–15.

Nestlé becomes TFT’s newest member. (2010). Last accessed March 13, 2013
http://www.tft­forests.org/news/item/?n=10303.

Neuman, J. (1996). Lights, Camera, War: Is Media Technology Driving International
Politics? New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Newsom, D., Turk, J. V., and Kruckeberg, D. (2004). This is PR: The Realities of
Public Relations, 8th edn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

References

153

Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention­based view of the firm. Strategic
Management Journal, 18: 187–206.

Oglivie, J. P. (2011). Let’s move: Can it make kids healthier? Last accessed
March 13, 2013 from http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/20/health/la­he­
lets­move­assess­20110320.

Our mission (n.d.). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.sfcg.org/
sfcg/sfcg_mission.html.

Over 40 UK Uncut actions across UK successfully target Starbucks over tax
avoidance and impact of government cuts on women (2012). Last accessed
March 13, 2013 from http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/blog/press­release­over­40­
uk­uncut­actions­across­uk­successfully­target­starbucks­over­tax­avoidance­
and­impact­of­government­cuts­on­women.

Overview. (2011). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.ketchumper­
spectives.com/archives/2010_i4/Barcelona_Principles_Public_Relations_
Measurement/Overview.

Paletz, D. L. and Entman, R. M. (1981). Media Power Politics. New York: Free
Press.

Pang, A., Jin, Y., and Cameron, G. T. (2010). Contingency theory conflict manage­
ment: Directions for the practice of crisis communication from a decade of
theory development, discovery, and dialogue. In W. T. Coombs and S. J.
Holladay (eds.), Handbook of Crisis Communication (pp. 527–49). Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing.

Partners (2012). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.joinred.com.
Paul, J. A. (2000, June). NGOs and global policy­making. Last accessed March 13, 2013

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/177/31611.html.
Pell, E. (1990, March/April). No sacred cows. Common Cause Magazine, 10: 6–7.
People & Events: 1857–1944 (2000). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://

www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/rockefellers/peopleevents/p_tarbell.html.
Pfizer Statement on PhRMA Principles (2005, August 2). Last accessed March 13,

2013 from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Pfizer+Statement+On+PhRMA+
Principles.­a0134738554.

PhRMA Guiding Principles: Direct to consumer advertisements about pres­
crip tion medicines (2005, August). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://
www.phrma.org/sites/default/files/631/phrmaguidingprinciplesdec08
final.pdf.

Pollution: Keep America beautiful – Iron Eyes Cody (1961–1983) (2005). Last
accessed March 13, 2013 http://www.adcouncil.org/Our­Work/The­Classics/
Pollution­Keep­America­Beautiful­Iron­Eyes­Cody.

Potter, W. (2010). Deadly Spin: An Insurance Company Insider Speaks out on How
Corporate PR is Killing Health Care and Deceiving Americans. New York:
Bloomsbury.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

154

PR Watch (2005). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.prwatch.org/
prwissues.

PR Watch (2013). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.prwatch.org/
prwissues.

Practice areas (n.d.). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.smithand­
company.com/the­practice.

Presnal, K. (2011). Will H&M be able to stop Versace’s killer jeans? Last accessed
March 13, 2013 from http://www.skimbacolifestyle.com/2011/07/hm­stop­
versaces­killer­jeans.html.

PRSA Member Code of Ethics (2000). New York: Public Relations Society of
America.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American
Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Rakow, L. F. (1989). Information and power: Toward a critical theory of informa­
tion campaigns. In C. T. Salmon (ed.), Information Campaigns: Balancing Social
Values and Social Change (pp. 164–84). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Raucher, A. R. (1968). Public Relations and Business: 1900–1929. Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press.

Rawlins, B. L. (2005). Corporate social responsibility. In R. L. Heath
(ed.), Encyclopedia of Public Relations (vol. 1, pp. 210–14). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Raymond, D. (2003). Activism: Behind the banners. In S. John and S. Thomson
(eds.), New Activism and the Corporate Response (pp. 207–25). New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.

Reports of blindness in men using Viagra, Cialis (2005, May 27). Last accessed
March 13, 2013 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8004291/print/1/
displaymode/1098.

Results (2012). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.joinred.com/
results.

Richey, L. A. and Ponte, S. (2011). Product RED, brand aid and celebrity driven
development. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://triplecrisis.com/
product­red­brand­aid­and­celebrity­driven­development.

Ridings, M. (2010). Take a look at what Nestle thinks a brand manager does. Last
accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.techguerilla.com/nestle­facebook­
greenpeace­timeline­in­proces.

Ries, A. and Reis, L. (2002). The Fall of Advertising and the Rise of PR. New York:
HarperCollins.

Rindova, V. and Fombrun, C. (1999). Constructing competitive advantage: The
role of firm­constituent interactions. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 691–710.

Roddick, A. (1996, October 31). Body Shop challenges Shell to confront “new
business reality.” Financial Times, p. 14.

References

155

Rosenman, M. (2007). The patina of philanthropy. Last accessed March 13, 2013
from http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/the_patina_of_philanthropy.

Ryan, C. (1991). Prime Time Activism: Media Strategies for Grass Roots Organizing.
Boston: South End Press.

Saxton, G. D. and Benson, M. A. (2005). Social capital and the growth of the
nonprofit sector. Social Science Quarterly, 86(1): 16–35.

Schultz, D. E. (2003). Evolving marketing and marketing communication into the
twenty­first century. In D. Iacobucci and B. Calder (eds.), Kellogg on Integrated
Marketing (pp. vii–xxi). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Scotts, D. M. (2011). The New Rules of Marketing & PR: How to Use Social Media,
Online Video, Mobile Applications, Blogs, News Releases, and Viral Marketing to
Reach Buyers Directly. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons.

Scrimger, J. and Richards, T. (2003). Public relations battles and wars: Journalistic
clichés and the potential for conflict resolution. Public Relations Review, 29:
485–92.

Sebastian, M. (2012). Report: PR pros should not edit their client’s Wikipedia
entries. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.prdaily.com/Main/
Articles/Report_PR_pros_should_not_edit_their_clients_Wikip_12026.
aspx#.

Sheehan, K. B. (2003). Balancing acts: An analysis of Food and Drug Administration
letters about direct­to­consumer advertising violations. Journal of Public Policy
& Marketing, 22: 159–69.

Signitzer, B. H. and Coombs, T. (1992). Public relations and public diplomacy:
Conceptual convergences. Public Relations Review, 18(2): 137–47.

Simola, S. (2003). Ethics of justice and care in corporate crisis management.
Journal of Business Ethics, 46: 351–61.

Six painful social media screw­ups (2011). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/technology/1104/gallery.social_
media_controversies/2.html.

Smith, M. E. and Ferguson, D. P. (2001). Activism. In R. L. Heath (ed.), Handbook
of Public Relations (pp. 291–300). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sneed, T. (2012). How a PR maven turned Scandal into a television success. Last
accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/
2012/09/27/how­a­pr­maven­turned­scandal­into­a­television­success.

Sofer, S. (1991). Debate revisited: Practice over theory. In W. C. Olsen (ed.), The
Theory and Practice of International Relations, 8th edn. (pp. 65–77). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice­Hall.

SourceWatch (2013). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.source­
watch.org/index.php/SourceWatch.

Spicer, C. H. (1993). Images of public relations in print media. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 5: 47–61.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

156

Starck, K. and Kruckeberg, D. (2003). Ethical obligations of public relations in an
era of globalisation. Journal of Communication Management, 8(1): 29–40.

Starbucks tax row: £10m climbdown (2012). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from
http://news.sky.com/story/1021646/starbucks­tax­row­10m­climbdown.

Starr, P. (1982). The Social Transformation of American Medicine. New York: Basic
Books.

Stauber, J. and Rampton, S. (1995). Toxic Sludge is Good for You! Lies, Damn Lies and
the Public Relations Industry. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press.

Steger, M.B. (2009). Globalization: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford.
Stenzel, P.L. (2000). Globalization. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://

www.enotes.com/globalization­reference/globalization.
Stockholm Accords. (2010). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.

stockholmaccords.org/accords­text.
Stone, B. and Richtel, M. (2007). The hand that controls the sock puppet

could get  slapped. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.nytimes.
com/2007/07/16/technology/16blog.html?ex=1342238400&en=9a3424961f
9d2163&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0.

Sweet success for Kit Kat campaign: You asked, Nestlé has answered (2010). Last
accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/
news/features/Sweet­success­for­Kit­Kat­campaign.

Tapscott, D., and Ticoll, D. (2003). The Naked Corporation. New York: Free Press.
Taylor, M. (2005). Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). In R. L. Heath (ed.),

Encyclopedia of Public Relations (vol. 2, pp. 576–78). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Taylor, M. (2010). Public relations in the enactment of civil society. In R. L. Heath

(ed.), Sage Handbook of Public Relations, 2nd edn. (pp. 5–16). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

The EU–Latin America bananas agreement: Questions and answers (2009).
Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://europa.eu/rapid/press­release_
MEMO­09­557_en.htm.

Thomas, C. (2003). Cyberactivism and the corporations: New strategies for new
media. In S. John and S. Thomson (eds.), New Activism and the Corporate Response
(pp. 115–35). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Top 10 party tips (2010). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.eonline.
com/on/shows/spin_crowd/party_tips.html.

Toxic threads: Under wraps. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.
greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/toxics/
Water%202012/ToxicThreads03.pdf.

Treadwell, D. and Treadwell, J. B. (2005). Public Relations Writing: Principles and
Practice, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tsetsura, K. and Kruckeberg, D. (2013). Transparency, Public Relations and the Mass
Media: Combating Media Bribery Worldwide. New York: Routledge.

References

157

UK Uncut (n.d.). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.ukuncut.org.
uk/about/ukuncut.

Ulmer, R. R., Seeger, M. W., and Sellnow, T. L. (2005). Stakeholder theory. In R. L.
Heath (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public Relations (vol. 2, pp. 808–11). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

UN Framework (2011). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.
unglobalcompact.org/Issues/human_rights/The_UN_SRSG_and_the_UN_
Global_Compact.html.

UN Global Compact 10 Principles (n.d.). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from
http://www.unglobalcompact.org/AboutTheGC/TheTenPrinciples/index.
html.

Upton Sinclair (2005). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.spartacus.
schoolnet.co.uk/Jupton.htm.

Van Grove, J. (2009). Sponsored Tweets launches: The end of Twitter as we know
it? Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://mashable.com/2009/08/03/
izea­sponsored­tweets.

van Riel, C. B. M. (2000). Corporate communication orchestrated by a sustaina­
ble story. In M. Schultz, M. J. Hatch, and M. H. Larsen (eds.), The Expressive
Organization: Linking Identity, Reputation, and the Corporate Brand (pp. 157–81).
New York: Oxford University Press.

van Ruler, B. and Verĉiĉ, D. (2002). The Bled manifesto on public relations.
Last  accessed March 13, 2013 from http://prbooks.pbworks.com/f/Bled+
Manifesto.pdf.

Vasquez, G. M. and Taylor, M. (2001). Research perspectives on “the public.”
In R. L. Heath (ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (pp. 139–54). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Wartick, S. L. (1992). The relationship between intense media exposure and
change in corporate reputation. Business & Society, 31: 33–42.

Watts, D. J. and Peretti, J. (2007, May). Viral marketing for the real world. Harvard
Business Review. Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.fastcompany.
com/magazine/122/is­the­tipping­point­toast.html?page=0%2C5.

Weelwright, J. (2001, August 19). Interview: Anita Roddick. Scotland on
Sunday, p. 8.

Who supports the INSM? (n.d.). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.
insm.de/en/TheINSM/the­insm.html.

Wilcox, D., Ault, P. H., Agee, W. K., and Cameron, G. T. (2000). Essentials of Public
Relations. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Willetts. P. (n.d.). What is a non­governmental organization? Last accessed March
13, 2013 from http://www.gdrc.org/ngo/peter­willets.html.

Witte, K., Meyer, G., and Martell, D. (2001). Effective Health Risk Messages: A Step­
by­Step Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society

158

Wyeth support PhRMA guiding principles for direct­to­consumer advertising (2005,
August 2). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.newsrx.com/news
letters/Medicine­and­Law­Weekly/2005­09­16/ 09122005333527MLW.html.

Zombie preparedness (2012). Last accessed March 13, 2013 from http://www.
cdc.gov/phpr/zombies.htm.

It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society, Second Edition.
W. Timothy Coombs and Sherry J. Holladay.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Index

abolitionists 72–73, 76
activists, activism 129–132

antagonistic view 63–64
challenges 71–72
Internet activism 82–87

Alar 95–97
Alinsky, Saul 79–81
American Family Association (AFA)

83–85
American Medical Association

(AMA) 97–99
apple industry 96
Armed Forces of the Philippines 6
Armstrong, Lance 5

banana tariff 132
Chiquita 132
Dole 132

Barcelona Principles 24
Baxter, Leone 61–62
Bernays, Edward 61–62
Bled Manifesto 124
boundary spanner 45–49, 56–57
boycott 84
Bretton Woods Project 130
bribery 15–16
Burger King 64

Burson-Marsteller 10
Byoir, Carl 61–62

Canada’s Great Bear rainforest 131
Catalytic Model 93–94, 119
Centers for Disease Control

(CDC) 106–107
Center for Media and Democracy 12
Chase–Jones Model 91–92
Chief Iron Eyes Cody, crying Indian 104
civil society, civil society organizations 129
Clean Clothes Campaign 86
Coalition for a Better Inglewood 99
co-creation perspective 125
Command PR 6
commercial diplomacy 128
conflict between organization and

stakeholders 127
corporate-centric view 60–63, 66–67, 124
corporate social responsibility

(CSR) 40–41, 49, 114–117, 125, 139
Cutlip, Scott 61

daminozide see Alar
Declaration of Principles 49
deontology 39–40
Detox campaign 132–134

Index

160

Dinan, William 18
direct-to-consumer advertising

(DTC) 118–122
criticisms 101
response to critics 101–102

disease mongering 118–119

Edelman’s Trust Barometer 131
Enron 4
Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) 95–99
ethic of care 40–41
ethics 36–37, 38–49, 58–59

Canadian Public Relations Society
(CPRS) 42

Global Alliance 42–43, 45
influence 46, 48
IPRA 41
International Association of Business

Communicators (IABC) 41
listening 47
perspectives 39–42
professional codes 41–45
Public Relations Society of America

(PRSA) 43–45
resides in individual 58–59
tensions for practitioners 49–50

European Commission 136
Ewan, Stuart 4
Excellence Theory 65, 124
extended parallel process model

(EPPM) 102–103, 119
efficacy 102, 103
fear appeal 102
threat 102–103

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 14
Fenton Communications 96
First Reform Era 72–76
food disparagement laws (food libel laws) 96
Food and Drug Administration

(FDA) 119–120
Ford Motor Company 83–85
Free-standing Ambulatory Surgery Center

(FASC) 100–101
front groups 14
Fully Functioning Society Theory

(FFST) 124–126, 139

general hospitals 100
genetic engineering 128

DuPont 128
Monsanto 128

Gilligan, Carol 40
Global Fund 108
global civil society 130
globalization 127–8
Greenpeace 114–116, 132–134

H&M 133
HealthSouth 4
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act 106
Heath, Robert 94, 125–126
Hill, John 61–62
Hill and Knowlton 10
History of Standard Oil, The 78
HIV/AIDS 109
Holiday, Ryan 22
Huffington Post 22

image 13
see also reputation

influence, see power
interdependence 40
International Association of Business

Communicators (IABC) 41
Initiative Neue Soziale Marktwirtschaft

(INSM) 111–112
Instagram 6

Systrom, Keven 6
Internet Contagion Theory

(ICT) 87
issues management 81–82, 90–101

communication 94
definitions 91
power 94–95
process definition 91

Jungle, The 77

Keep America Beautiful 103–105
Kodak 80

labor unions 87–89
Labour Behind the Label 86
Lee, Ivy 61–62, 63–64, 78
legacy media 22, 133

Index

161

Let’s Move 105–106
Ludlow Massacre 87–88

marketplace of ideas 28–29
McClure’s 78
Meat Inspection Act 77
Miller, David 18
Mothers and Others for Pesticides

Limits 96
muckraking 76–77
mutually influential relationships 35, 58, 127
mutually beneficial

relationships 35, 127

Naked Corporation, The 15
Nation, Carry A. 75
national health insurance 97–99
National Resource Defense Council

(NRDC) 95–96
neoliberalism 105, 110–111, 128
Nestlé 114–116
News Corporation 5
Newsom, Earl 61–62
non-government organizations

(NGOs) 129
see also private voluntary

organizations

Obama, Michelle 105
Obama, President 97
one-way communication 39, 48
Olympus 5

Page, Arthur 60–61
palm oil 114–116
parable of the blind men and the

elephant 140
People for the Ethical Treatment of

Animals (PETA) 64
Persian Gulf War 10
Pfizer 121
pharmaceutical companies 118–121
PhRMA 121–122

guiding principles 121
Pilgrim’s Progress, The 77
Policy making 71–72, 81–82, 90–91

inside champion 72
postmodernism 55–58

Potter, Wendell 17–18
power 11, 15, 23–27, 30, 32, 38, 40–42, 44,

47, 53–56, 58, 65, 68, 73, 103,
122, 125–126

power over 53–54
PR! A Social History of Spin 8
private politics 112–122

defined 112
leverage points 113

private voluntary organizations (PVOs)
129–132, 139

Professional Air Traffic
Controllers Organization
(PATCO) 88

Progressive Era 76
Prohibition 73
propaganda 16

Goebbels, Joseph 16
pseudoevent 74
public agenda 60
public communication 28
public diplomacy 128
public interest 38–40
public relations

activist role 56–57
as confrontations 7
conscience of organization 37
critics 4–5, 8–13
critiques 13–20
definition 34–35, 126–127, 140
media portrayals 19
media use of term 6–7
popular press attacks 8–13
popular press books 20–23
postmodern perspective 55–58
profession or practice 22–26
PRSA definition 24
stakeholder view 124–125
strategic focus 24
see also spin

public relations literacy 29–31
Public Relations Society of

America (PRSA) 7, 19, 21–23,
33–35

public service announcement
(PSA) 103–104

publicity 6
Pure Food and Drug Act 77

Index

162

Railroad Labor Act 88
Rainforest Action Network 131
Rampton, Sheldon 9–12
RED Campaign 108–109
reflective management 125
reputation, 113–114, 116

see also image
robber barons 77
Rockefeller, J. D. 61–62, 64, 78
Roosevelt, Theodore 76–77
Ruder Finn Group 18
Rules for Radicals 80–81

Sarah Bush Lincoln Health System
100–101

“Scandal” (television show) 19
Scotts, David Meerman 21
Second Reform Era 76–79
self-regulation 121–122
Sinclair, Upton 77, 78
Smith, Judy 19
social capital 35
social marketing 101–110
social media 14, 21–23, 126–128

activism 85–86
blogs 16, 21–23
Facebook 14, 27, 86, 105, 115, 133
monitoring 27
Twitter 14, 27, 105, 116–117, 135

social networks 25–26
social reform 62, 68
socialized medicine 88
sockpuppeting 14
spin 4, 23
“Spin Crowd, The” (television

show) 20
stakeholders 24–25, 38, 40–43, 47,

54–60, 70, 103, 121
challenges 69
defined 31, 32
definitive 70
expectant 70–71
latent 70
legitimacy 69–70
power 69–70
salience 69–71
urgency 69–70

Standard Oil 78

Starbucks 116–117
Stauber, John 9–12
Stockholm Accords 24
Stowe, Harriet Beecher 73

Tappan brothers 72
Tarbell, Ida 78
teleological approach 39
temperance 73–76
Toxic Sludge is Good for You! 9–12
transnational advocacy networks

(TANs) 129–130
transparency 14, 15–16
Triangle Waist Companies 88
Truman, Harry 97
Truth, Sojourner 73
two-way asymmetrical model 46
two-way communication 39, 48, 58
two-way symmetrical model 46–47
Tyco 4

UK Uncut 116–117
UN Global Compact 134–135
Uncle Tom’s Cabin 73
Uniroyal 95–96
United Nations 6, 134–138

human rights 6, 135–138
Unseen Power, The 61

Versace 85–86
Vioxx 120

Waist factory fire 74
Walden Two 35
Walmart 99–100
web of relationships 34, 127
Weber Shandwick Worldwide 18
Whitaker, Clem 61–62
Whitaker & Baxter 98
Williams, Armstrong 56
Witte, Kim 102–103
Women’s Christian Temperance

Union 74
Wyeth 121

YouTube 105, 115–116, 133

Zombie Apocalypse 106–108

MANAGING
CORPORATE SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY

D
ow

nloaded from
https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/ by Florida International U

niversity, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [17/10/2022]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

W. TIMOTHY COOMBS & SHERRY J. HOLLADAY

MANAGING
CORPORATE SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY
A Communication Approach

A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication

D
ow

nloaded from
https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/ by Florida International U

niversity, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [17/10/2022]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

This edition fi rst published 2012
© 2012 W. Timothy Coombs and Sherry J. Holladay

Blackwell Publishing was acquired by John Wiley & Sons in February 2007. Blackwell’s
publishing program has been merged with Wiley’s global Scientifi c, Technical, and Medical
business to form Wiley-Blackwell.

Registered Offi ce
John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex,
PO19 8SQ, UK

Editorial Offi ces
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK
The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

For details of our global editorial offi ces, for customer services, and for information about
how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our
website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell.

The right of W. Timothy Coombs and Sherry J. Holladay to be identifi ed as the authors of
this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears
in print may not be available in electronic books.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as
trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service
marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not
associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed
to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It
is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional
services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a
competent professional should be sought.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Coombs, W. Timothy.
Managing corporate social responsibility : a communication approach /
W. Timothy Coombs, Sherry J. Holladay.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-4443-3629-0 (hardback) – ISBN 978-1-4443-3645-0 (paperback)
1. Social responsibility of business. 2. Business communication.
I. Holladay, Sherry J. II. Title.
HD60.C6347 2011
658.4’08–dc23
2011017060

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

This book is published in the following electronic formats: ePDFs 9781118106655;
Wiley Online Library 9781118106686; ePub 9781118106662; Kindle 9781118106679

Set in 10/12 pt Sabon by Toppan Best-set Premedia Limited

1 2012

D
ow

nloaded from
https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/ by Florida International U

niversity, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [17/10/2022]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

We dedicate this book to Jeanne, Tom, and Dorothy.

D
ow

nloaded from
https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/ by Florida International U

niversity, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [17/10/2022]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

Contents in Detail ix

Acknowledgments xiii

1 Conceptualizing Corporate Social Responsibility 1

2 Strategic CSR 29

3 CSR Scanning and Monitoring 51

4 Formative Research 63

5 Create the CSR Initiative 89

6 Communicate the CSR Initiative 109

7 Evaluation and Feedback 137

8 CSR Issues 153

References 165

Index 177

Contents

D
ow

nloaded from
https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/ by Florida International U

niversity, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [17/10/2022]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

Acknowledgments xiii

1 Conceptualizing Corporate Social Responsibility 1

Box 1.1: The Sullivan Principles 2
Corporate Social Responsibility: Seeking Parameters 5

Defi ning CSR 6
Box 1.2: Defi nition of CSR 8

Benefi ts and Costs of CSR 9
Two Sides of CSR Cost-Benefi t Analysis 9
CSR Costs for Corporations 10
CSR Costs for Society 12
CSR Benefi ts for Corporations 13
CSR Benefi ts for Society 14

Winning and Sustaining Support for CSR 14
Other Conceptual Questions about CSR 16

CSR: Modern or Historic? 16
Box 1.3: Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Standards 19
Forms of CSR 20
Where Is CSR’s Home? 22
Should CSR Standards Be Localized or Globalized? 24

Conclusion 27

2 Strategic CSR 29

Characteristics of the Corporation 31
Stakeholder Expectations and the Importance of

Organizational Identifi cation 32
Reputational Benefi ts of CSR 35

Contents in Detail

D
ow

nloaded from
https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/ by Florida International U

niversity, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [17/10/2022]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

x Contents in Detail

Perceived Motives for CSR Initiatives 38
General Strategic Guidance: Approaching the CSR Process

as Change Management 44
Everyone Loves a Good Story 45

The CSR Process Model: A Brief Preview 47

3 CSR Scanning and Monitoring 51

Issues Management 53
Scanning and CSR 54

Prioritizing CSR Concerns 54
Monitoring and CSR 57
Scanning and Monitoring in Concert 58
Stakeholder Engagement’s Role in Scanning and Monitoring 58
Conclusion and Critical Questions 60

4 Formative Research 63

Researching Stakeholder Expectations for CSR 67
Box 4.1: MyStarbucksidea CSR Suggestions 68
The Expectation Gap Approach 69
Box 4.2: IKEA Child Labour Code of Conduct 71
Origins of Expectation Gaps 73
Box 4.3: Pinkwashing Detection 75
Relevance of Operant Conditioning Theory to

Stakeholder Challenges 77
The Alignment Approach 80

The Counterbalance: Corporate Concerns 85
Conclusion and Critical Questions 85

5 Create the CSR Initiative 89

Selecting the CSR Initiatives: Appreciating the
Contestable Nature of CSR 90

Differing CSR Expectations among Stakeholders 90
Stakeholder Salience 91
Box 5.1: Stakeholder Salience 92

What Constitutes CSR? 92
Stakeholder Participation in Decision Making 94
Organizational Justice in the Engagement Process 96

The “Right Amount” of CSR 98

D
ow

nloaded from
https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/ by Florida International U

niversity, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [17/10/2022]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

Contents in Detail xi

When Employees Challenge CSR: Considering
Internal Stakeholders 99

Preparing for Negative Stakeholder Reactions:
Message Mapping 101

Developing CSR Objectives 101
Box 5.2: Message-Mapping Template 102
Process versus Outcome Objectives 103

Conclusion and Critical Questions 105

6 Communicate the CSR Initiative 109

CSR Promotional Communication Dilemma 110
Box 6.1: Overview of Corporate-Activist Partnerships 116

Communication Channels for CSR Messaging 116
Overview of Communication Channels for CSR 117
Box 6.2: Social Media Overview 118
Employees as a Communication Channel 122
External Stakeholders as a Communication Channel 123
Strategic Application of Social Media to

CSR Communication 124
The Overall CSR Promotional Communication Strategy 128

Annual Reports and CSR Communication 128
Conclusion and Critical Questions 133

7 Evaluation and Feedback 137

Evaluation 138
Assurance and CSR Evaluation 141

Stakeholder Engagement in the Evaluation Process 142
Box 7.1: Musgrave Group Assurance Statement 2006 143
Box 7.2: Basic ROI Formula 145
Considering Return on Investment 145

Feedback 146
Feedback from Stakeholders on the CSR Process 147
The Communication Audit 148

Conclusion and Critical Questions 148

8 CSR Issues 153

Overarching Concerns for CSR Initiatives 154
Responsibility for CSR Initiatives 155
Limitations from Industry, Culture, and Law 157

D
ow

nloaded from
https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/ by Florida International U

niversity, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [17/10/2022]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

xii Contents in Detail

Industry Standards 157
The Culture and Socioeconomic Context 158
Box 8.1: Culture and Activism 160
The Legal Context 161
Beyond Limitations 161

Parting Thoughts 162

References 165

Index 177

D
ow

nloaded from
https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/ by Florida International U

niversity, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [17/10/2022]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

Many individuals supported us along the way to make this text a reality,
and to all we are very grateful. Most importantly, we thank Elizabeth
Swayze, our editor at Wiley – Blackwell, for continuing to be an enthusiastic
and responsive advocate for our work. This text, along with our previous
publications with Wiley – Blackwell, has benefi ted from Elizabeth ’ s encour-
agement and judicious feedback. Elizabeth ’ s guidance has enabled us to
pursue projects that are important to our discipline, accessible to our
readers, and often enable us to push the boundaries of the status quo.

We owe thanks to our production team who worked hard to get our
manuscript into shape. Matthew Brown ably supervised the process and
amazingly kept everyone on a tight schedule. We acknowledge Dave Nash,
who worked with permissions and images to secure visual elements we
believed would enhance the book. Dave persistently sought permissions
from often reluctant (and sometimes completely uncooperative) sources. We
also thank Cheryl Adam, our copy – editor. Cheryl ’ s competence undoubtedly
makes us look better and adds to our readers ’ experiences with the material
in our book.

We also thank the scholars who reviewed the early version of the manu-
script and offered suggestions that enhanced the book.

W. Timothy Coombs
Sherry J. Holladay

University of Central Florida, Orlando

Acknowledgments

D
ow

nloaded from
https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/ by Florida International U

niversity, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [17/10/2022]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

Home Depot, the world ’ s largest home improvement retailer, operates in the US,
Canada, Mexico, and China. Home Depot supports “ Team Depot, ” a volunteer
program led by store associates that participates in community programs. Courtesy
of Volunteer Canada

D
ow

nloaded from
https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/ by Florida International U

niversity, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [17/10/2022]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

1

Conceptualizing Corporate Social
Responsibility

Apartheid is an historical artifact for many people reading this book rather
than a current issue or reality. Apartheid was a severe, state – sanctioned
racial segregation practiced in South Africa and what was then called
Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). A white minority used apartheid to oppress the
indigenous black populations. In the 1970s, Dr. Leon Howard Sullivan, a
US minister, plotted a corrective course of action that became known as the
Sullivan Principles. The Sullivan Principles were designed to help end apart-
heid in South Africa by placing requirements on US corporations wanting
to conduct business in South Africa. Box 1.1 lists the fi nal seven points to
the Sullivan Principles (Leon H. Sullivan Foundation, n.d. ). The Sullivan
Principles, along with the divestment campaign of the 1980s, did exert some
pressure on the South African government. The divestment campaign
worked in tandem with the Sullivan Principles. Investors were asked to
divest (remove investments) from any US companies that did not adopt the
Sullivan Principles. College campuses were a hotbed of activity for divest-
ment pressures in the 1980s. Campus protests brought attention to the issue
and pressured universities to cease investing in corporations doing business
in South Africa. While the Sullivan Principles alone precipitated very little
change, the divestment campaign is credited with having a signifi cant effect
on eradicating apartheid in South Africa.

The Sullivan Principles and related divestment efforts are indicators of
corporate social responsibility (CSR) making a difference on a global scale.
Fair treatment of workers and socially responsible investing are recognized
today as CSR. The Sullivan Principles provide a foundation for socially

Managing Corporate Social Responsibility: A Communication Approach, First Edition.
W. Timothy Coombs, Sherry J. Holladay.
© 2012 W. Timothy Coombs and Sherry J. Holladay. Published 2012 by Blackwell
Publishing Ltd.

D
ow

nloaded from
https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/ by Florida International U

niversity, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [17/10/2022]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

2 Conceptualizing Corporate Social Responsibility

responsible investing and, therefore, comprise a form of CSR as well. The
focus of the Sullivan Principles was social improvement through the elimi-
nation of apartheid. The Sullivan Principles were not the fi rst CSR effort
or the fi rst socially responsible investing guidelines to appear in the business
world. However, the anti – apartheid efforts illustrated the potential power
of CSR. Corporations were pressured to change their behavior not because
their actions were illegal but because their actions failed to meet expecta-
tions for responsible behavior.

On December 3, 1984, the Union Carbide India Limited facility in
Bhopal, India, leaked tons of deadly methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas. Bhopal
quickly became the worst industrial accident in the history of the world.
Estimates place the death toll at between 3,000 and 10,000 people in the
fi rst 72 hours. One estimate places the number of those who have died since
being exposed at around 15,000. Between 120,000 to 500,000 people suf-
fered permanent medical conditions from the exposure (Amnesty, 2009 ).
Investigative reports since the accident all noted lax safety as the cause.
Union Carbide ’ s own investigation identifi ed procedural violations and
operating errors (Diamond, 1985 ). Many safety systems did not function,
and overall the facility was in disrepair. This created a very unsafe operating

Box 1.1 The Sullivan Principles

1. Non – segregation of the races in all eating, comfort, and work
facilities.

2. Equal and fair employment practices for all employees.
3. Equal pay for all employees doing equal or comparable work for

the same period of time.
4. Initiation of and development of training programs that will

prepare, in substantial numbers, blacks and other nonwhites for
supervisory, administrative, clerical, and technical jobs.

5. Increasing the number of blacks and other nonwhites in manage-
ment and supervisory positions.

6. Improving the quality of life for blacks and other nonwhites
outside the work environment in such areas as housing, transpor-
tation, school, recreation, and health facilities.

7. Working to eliminate laws and customs that impede social, eco-
nomic, and political justice. (added in 1984)

Source : Leon H. Sullivan Foundation (n.d.) .

D
ow

nloaded from
https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/ by Florida International U

niversity, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [17/10/2022]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

Conceptualizing Corporate Social Responsibility 3

environment that led to tragic consequences for employees and those living
near the facility (Bedford, 2009 ).

People in the United States were concerned because Union Carbide was
using the same chemical at a US facility. Union Carbide reassured US citi-
zens that the facility in the United States was safer. That led some people
to question the original safety commitment in Bhopal (Diamond, 1984 ).
Here is one description of the safety discrepancies between Bhopal and the
United States.

Carbide had dropped the safety standards at the Bhopal plant well below
those it maintained at a nearly identical facility in West Virginia. It is also
important to note here that Carbide was able to operate its deteriorating plant
because industrial safety and environmental laws and regulations were lacking
or were not strictly enforced by the state of Madhya Pradesh or the Indian
government making them indirectly responsible for the tragedy at Bhopal.
(Trade Environmental Database, 1997 )

The US facility was slightly different as it had fewer control systems and
relied more on manual rather than automatic systems (Shabecoff, 1984 ). In
fact, Union Carbide documents released during litigation indicated the
Bhopal facility was built using some untested technologies (Trade
Environmental Database, 1997 ).

Bhopal should not be forgotten so that it is never repeated. Bhopal stands
as an appalling example of the exploitation of developing countries. The
same deadly chemical was present in Bhopal, India, and in the United States.
In Bhopal, the safety standards were lax from the start and were allowed
to deteriorate. In the United States, the safety standards were maintained
to a higher standard. Why the neglect in Bhopal? The answer is fi nancial
gain. Union Carbide saved money by requiring less rigorous safety stand-
ards in India and by not investing in preventative maintenance (Bedford,
2009 ). We cannot assume corporations will naturally act in a responsible
or even a humane manner. This is not to say that all corporations are inher-
ently evil and callous toward constituent safety. Bhopal reminds us that
CSR may not be naturally occurring within the corporate environment. The
allure of profi t sometimes can be deadly for constituents.

Nike remains the leader in the athletic shoe and garment market globally.
The brand is widely recognized around the world and associated with
winning. In the 1990s, Nike became associated with sweatshops and exploi-
tation of workers. Many nongovernment organizations (NGOs), such as
Global Exchange and Sweatshop Watch, began to complain about the
treatment of workers in facilities that supplied Nike with products and
materials. This mix of religious, student, and labor groups noted problems
with corporal punishment, low wages, forced overtime, inhumane working

D
ow

nloaded from
https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/ by Florida International U

niversity, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [17/10/2022]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

4 Conceptualizing Corporate Social Responsibility

conditions, and child labor (Team Sweat, 2008 ). An awareness campaign
used public relations to inform constituents about the origin of Nike prod-
ucts. Combining the Internet with traditional news expos é s, the NGOs were
able to exercise a signifi cant amount of pressure on Nike to reform its
practices. Constituents increased public awareness of supplier practices, and
this created negative publicity and pressure for Nike to change (Carty,
2002 ). We should note that the sweatshop issue was (and continues to be)
endemic to the entire garment and shoe industry, not just Nike. Nike was
targeted because activists know that confronting the market leader maxi-
mizes the attention that activists attract for their efforts.

NGOs included universities in the United States as their targets for the
Nike effort. Students used various public relations tactics to pressure admin-
istrations into changing contracts if Nike did not alter its business practices.
US universities have lucrative athletic shoe contracts with major shoe manu-
facturers such as Nike, Adidas, and Reebok. The Nike labor case illustrates
how public relations becomes translated into political pressure via fi nancial
threats. Negative attention on the supply chain created policy changes
(Bullert, 2000 ). O ’ Rourke (2005) notes that the NGOs used public relations
and marketing campaigns to alter global production and consumption. The
public relations efforts shifted demand from “ problematic to improved
products ” (O ’ Rourke, 2005 , p. 116). In essence, socially responsible con-
sumption was creating more socially responsible corporate behavior – con-
sumers were pushing for CSR.

These three vignettes are all pieces of the mosaic that comprise corporate
social responsibility. They offer different insights into CSR and its trans-
formative potential while reminding us that CSR transpires within a busi-
ness landscape, not some abstract utopia. In these three cases, corporations
engaged in “ bad behavior ” while experiencing economic success. But the
public scrutiny of their actions contributed to outrage and pressure for
change. As we shall see, pressure for “ responsible behavior ” may originate
from inside the organization (e.g., it is seen as central to its mission), or
they may emanate from pressures outside the organization as we saw in the
three cases at the beginning of this chapter.

The challenge in discussing CSR is that it is not reducible to one simple
concept. Our examples illustrate how irresponsible corporate behavior may
take many forms. Similarly, responsible behavior is not easily defi ned. Nor
can concerns surrounding CSR be traced to one common history. CSR is a
composite of activities drawn from different academic and professional
disciplines. Moreover, what constitutes CSR actions will differ from country
to country. The complex nature of CSR results in a challenging fi rst chapter
that explains the conceptualization of CSR we have developed for this book,
identifi es costs and benefi ts for the corporation and society, and demon-
strates the value of a communication – centered approach to CSR.

D
ow

nloaded from
https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/ by Florida International U

niversity, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [17/10/2022]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

Conceptualizing Corporate Social Responsibility 5

Throughout this book, we refer to stakeholders, their relationship to
CSR and the corporation, and their role in the CSR process. Edward
Freeman (1984) provides the classic defi nition of a stakeholder as “ any
group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of
organizational objectives ” (p. 46). How the group or individual affects or
is affected by the organization is the stake that binds them to the organiza-
tion. We acknowledge that this is a broad defi nition and can even include
nonhuman entities such as the environment. Our communication approach
to CSR focuses on the importance of stakeholders and the stakeholder
engagement process in conceptualizing, implementing, and evaluating CSR
initiatives.

Thinking in terms of stakeholders represents a way of classifying or
segmenting people – dividing people into similar groups. That is why writers
often refer to types or categories of stakeholders. The stake is used to create
the categories for segmentation. Typical stakeholder categories include
employees (for whom employment is the stake), members of the community
(for whom living near the organization is the stake), customers (for whom
the product or service is the stake), and investors (for whom fi nancial inter-
est is the stake). Stakeholders also can be conceptualized in terms of CSR
concerns or interests. For example, some stakeholders are especially con-
cerned about and segmented according to environmental issues like air and
water pollution, depletion of natural resources, or organizational impacts
on endangered species. Their interest in environmental concerns is the stake
that binds them to the organization. Other stakeholders are concerned with
human rights and labor issues. They may focus on issues like child labor,
the rights of workers to unionize, or workplace safety. The concerns of
stakeholders can change and lead them to redefi ne their memberships. For
example, those living near or working at Union Carbide ’ s Bhopal facility
may have thought of themselves as having an economic stake in its success.
But that stake may have shifted dramatically following the Bhopal industrial
accident and be broadened to include health and life – and – death concerns.
Stakes also can shift when people are made aware of the relevance of the
corporation to their interests. For instance, campaigns have helped to
inform consumers of the conditions under which their apparel is manufac-
tured and have led them to demand change. Stakeholders, their relation-
ships with corporations, and communication ’ s role in this relationship and
the CSR process comprise the major theme woven throughout this book.

Corporate Social Responsibility: Seeking Parameters

When introducing a concept, it is important to defi ne that concept and to
articulate its parameters. We cannot assume everyone is working from the

D
ow

nloaded from
https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/ by Florida International U

niversity, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [17/10/2022]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

6 Conceptualizing Corporate Social Responsibility

same conceptualization. That is especially true for CSR since it lacks one
accepted defi nition and is a concept utilized in a variety of academic and
professional disciplines. Moreover, the actions that constitute CSR can vary
widely. Conceptualizing CSR is much like trying to map sand dunes in a
desert. We can see the dunes, but they shift over time in both location and
the grains of sand that comprise the dunes. What we can understand about
dunes is that they are composed of sand and that certain forces, such as
wind, serve to shape them. As we conceptualize CSR, we need to take a
macro rather than a micro view to identify common elements within CSR.
In a way, we are treating CSR as a philosophy and a process that anchors
practices that can transform organizational behavior. We realize not every-
one will agree with this approach and how we conceptualize CSR. However,
we need to make a stand somewhere, and hopefully our conceptualization
will stimulate discussion – even if part of that discussion targets what people
feel we have failed to include.

At its most abstract, CSR is about the role of business in society. Nobel
Prize – winning economist Milton Friedman (1962) is the most notable voice
to claim that the primary role of business is to make money. We cannot
deny this conclusion because if businesses do not make money they cease
to operate, resulting in lost jobs, tax revenues, and investments. But a CSR
orientation challenges the notion that the pursuit of fi nancial concerns
should be the sole or even the dominant concern of corporations. Instead,
businesses are urged to consider their effects on the entire range of stake-
holders connected with their operations, not just the fi nancial stakeholders.
In addition, businesses must consider their effects on the natural and social
environments. The CSR philosophy encourages businesses to use their
expertise and other resources to improve society.

Defi ning CSR

Our conceptualization of CSR is infl uenced by defi nitions that have pre-
ceded this book. For example, we appreciate Werther and Chandler ’ s (2006,
2011) characterization of CSR as both a means and an end. They explain
that CSR is a means because it “ is an integral element of the fi rm ’ s strategy:
the way a fi rm goes about delivering its products or services to markets ”
( 2006 , p. 8). CSR is an end because it “ is a way of maintaining the legiti-
macy of its actions in the larger society by bringing stakeholder concerns
to the foreground ” ( 2006 , p. 8). We concur and believe that CSR is both
a means and an end, a process and an outcome. Being socially responsible
necessitates a focus on business practices and the outcomes associated with
those practices. Those outcomes are not merely fi nancial; rather, outcomes
include sensitivity to the impacts on stakeholders. CSR can best contribute

D
ow

nloaded from
https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/ by Florida International U

niversity, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [17/10/2022]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

Conceptualizing Corporate Social Responsibility 7

to the societal good when CSR acknowledges and incorporates the concerns
of the wider society.

Along the same lines, the European Commission (EC) defi nes CSR as
follows: “ A concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental
concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their
stakeholders on a voluntary basis ” (European Commission, 2010 ). This
defi nition also joins business practices with stakeholder concerns. As
refl ected in the EC ’ s defi nition and Werther and Chandler ’ s (2006, 2011)
work, we endorse the idea of strategic corporate social responsibility. A
corporation ’ s CSR initiatives should be driven by the organization ’ s vision
and purpose. What needs does the organization seek to meet? An organi-
zation may develop a mission statement and develop strategies for pursuing
the mission that include CSR objectives. As Vogel (2005) states, many
corporations are “ doing good to do well ” (p. 19). We see CSR as com-
plementary to, not competing with, the corporation ’ s mission.

We also concur with the European Commission and Werther and
Chandler ’ s (2006, 2011) view that strategic CSR focuses more on voluntary
ethical and discretionary concerns that lack clear mandates for perform-
ance. We do not consider behaviors that are required by law to be part
of corporate social responsibility. We assume corporations must conform
to legal requirements, and CSR extends beyond those legal requirements
to include additional voluntary initiatives consistent with the public good.
We view specifi c CSR initiatives , the enactment of particular forms or
means of pursuing CSR, as voluntary . That is, corporations select which
(if any) CSR processes and activities to engage in and how to enact those.
However, as noted earlier, the expectations of relevant internal and external
stakeholders, irrespective of where those stakeholders may be located, may
have a strong infl uence on CSR strategy. For example, corporations may
be pressured by stakeholders to conform to certain expectations and be
rewarded for doing so (through purchase decisions, support, etc.) and be
punished for violating those expectations (e.g., through boycotts, negative
word of mouth, or negative media attention). In a global society fi lled
with multinational corporations (MNCs), a macro view of CSR would
hold that the larger society itself functions as a stakeholder for the cor-
poration. Along the same lines, many people may view the environment
as a stakeholder. While it may seem too broad to conclude that we are
stakeholders of every corporation in our known world, we may feel that
as members of humanity we have a vested interest in the operations
and effects of all corporations. Later in this chapter, we explore the
tension between localization and globalization in a corporation ’ s CSR
orientation.

Based on the previous discussion of central concerns, we propose
this defi nition of CSR: CSR is the voluntary actions that a corporation

D
ow

nloaded from
https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/ by Florida International U

niversity, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [17/10/2022]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

8 Conceptualizing Corporate Social Responsibility

implements as it pursues its mission and fulfi lls its perceived obligations to
stakeholders, including employees, communities, the environment, and
society as a whole .

Our defi nition is sensitive to the “ triple bottom line ” : concern for people,
the environment, and profi t. We believe that CSR initiatives involve volun-
tary actions. As mentioned above, if a corporation is required by law to
perform an action, it does not qualify as a CSR action. Corporations must
choose to exceed the minimum legal expectations. Some readers may notice
that our defi nition (like many others) sidesteps the issue of specifi c business
motivations for engaging in CSR. Although we have not included motiva-
tions for pursuing CSR as part of our defi nition, we note that CSR actions
must be consistent – or at least not inconsistent – with an organization ’ s
mission. The mission is what the organization does to provide products and
services that meet others ’ needs.

Our defi nition also acknowledges the importance of stakeholder expecta-
tions in infl uencing CSR initiatives. Corporations have obligations to stake-
holders, and these include the obligation to understand and be responsive
to stakeholder expectations. The phrase perceived obligations is included
to denote that corporations can act only on what is known and accepted
as legitimate. For example, stakeholders concerned with animal rights may
believe that any corporations that serve meat are irresponsible. However,
the fast food industry is built around supplying meat products to consum-
ers. The industry would not survive without serving meat products. So the
expectations of serving no meat would be perceived as unrealistic and
would be rejected as inconsistent with their mission. However, the industry
could meet with animal rights representatives to explore ways of trying to
satisfy some expectations. In fact, this is what McDonald ’ s, Burger King,
and Wendy ’ s have done to address issues related to the humane treatment
and slaughter of animals they use for meat. We will explore these and other
issues implicated in our defi nition of CSR in more detail in chapter 2 on
strategic corporate social responsibility.

Box 1.2 Defi nition of CSR

CSR is the voluntary actions that a corporation implements as it
pursues its mission and fulfi lls its perceived obligations to stakehold-
ers, including employees, communities, the environment, and society
as a whole.

D
ow

nloaded from
https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/ by Florida International U

niversity, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [17/10/2022]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

Conceptualizing Corporate Social Responsibility 9

Benefi ts and Costs of CSR

The discussion of the benefi ts and costs of CSR is complex and riddled with
ideology. The complexity stems from two factors. First, the benefi ts and costs
of CSR must be considered from both the corporation ’ s perspective and soci-
ety ’ s (stakeholders ’ ) perspective. Where is there congruency and where is
there confl ict between the benefi ts and costs for a corporation and society?
Moreover, as chapter 1 illustrates, CSR is not simply one thing but a wide
variety of activities. Second, the same argument is often used as both a
benefi t and cost of CSR. For instance, CSR is said to both reduce the com-
petitiveness of a corporation (a cost, because engaging in CSR can consume
resources) and increase the competitiveness of a corporation (a benefi t,
because the CSR effort can attract positive attention). The interpretative
frame is largely a function of ideology. Those who favor the free market and
profi t view of corporations may view CSR as decreasing competitiveness,
while those who support the business case for CSR favor CSR as increasing
competitiveness. Although there is a lack of consensus in the existing data on
CSR costs and benefi ts, trends are emerging. This section navigates the com-
plexities of CSR costs and benefi ts by reviewing the arguments that manag-
ers should consider when developing their cost – benefi t analysis for CSR.

Two Sides of CSR Cost – Benefi t Analysis

Managers should construct a CSR cost – benefi t analysis around their own
organization. How is CSR – as a process and as a general outcome or end
– a benefi t for their corporations, and how is it a cost? This analysis is
complicated by the fact that CSR is not unidimensional. Myriad initiatives
count as CSR. But we recommend that managers begin with the general
idea of CSR (the philosophy) and then move to considerations of specifi c
activities that might mesh well with the corporation ’ s mission and stake-
holder expectations (the means or process).

But that is only half of the CSR picture. Managers also must consider
the effects of CSR on society. How will engaging in CSR benefi t society,
and how will engaging in CSR activity cost society? CSR is about infusing
a variety of stakeholder interests into the corporation ’ s thinking and strat-
egy. Focusing solely on the corporation ’ s concern recreates a corporate –
centric perspective that marginalizes social interests while privileging
fi nancial concerns. A corporate – centric perspective not only devalues society
but also may alienate nonfi nancial stakeholders, lead to criticism, and
make it more diffi cult for the corporation to operate. Therefore, manage-
ment must consider the CSR costs and benefi ts associated with society and

D
ow

nloaded from
https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/ by Florida International U

niversity, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [17/10/2022]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

10 Conceptualizing Corporate Social Responsibility

stakeholders. The two cost – benefi t analyses are related. For instance, a
failure to address CSR concerns can create stakeholder churn – where
stakeholders mobilize against an organization (Marquez & Fombrun, 2005 ;
Sethi, 1977 ) – and create costs for the corporation.

We have developed a summary table for the CSR cost – benefi t analyses.
Table 1.1 includes separate lists of primary costs and benefi ts for the cor-
poration and for society. The list, though clearly not exhaustive or mutually
exclusive, provides a starting point for the discussion of CSR costs and
benefi ts.

CSR Costs for Corporations

The CSR costs for corporations often are seen as rooted in Milton Friedman ’ s
view, mentioned earlier in this chapter, that the primary purpose of a busi-
ness is to make money for shareholders (Friedman, 1962, 1970 ). Let us
reconsider that view before reviewing CSR costs. In Friedman ’ s (1962)
words,

There is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its
resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profi t so long as it
stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free
competition, without deception or fraud. (p. 133)

Friedman is advocating for the free market ideology, and that does not
entirely rule out social concerns. For example, the market (stakeholders)
shapes the actions of business through their investing and consumer behav-
iors. That means the market can demand social responsibility from busi-
nesses, thus creating a scenario where social and fi nancial concerns become
complementary if not isomorphic. The business case for CSR is tied to free
market ideology as well. However, businesses are not compelled to address
social and environmental concerns if strong market pressures are absent.

We have distilled our discussions of CSR costs for corporations into
three major themes. First, the dominant theme associated with costs for
corporations is that CSR initiatives detract from the business ’ s focus on
profi ts. Profi ts, effi ciency, and competitiveness are reduced by CSR spend-
ing; customers ultimately will bear the costs of CSR; management is dis-
tracted by CSR and does not focus on strategic organizational goals; and
shareholders suffer less return on their investments. From this perspective,
CSR is essentially a fi nancial burden for the corporation and its stakehold-
ers. Moreover, managers must devote part of their time to CSR, and this
detracts from profi t making. The new demands of CSR become a distrac-
tion, represent a fi nancial loss for the business, and are a time drain on
management.

D
ow

nloaded from
https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/ by Florida International U

niversity, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [17/10/2022]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

Table 1.1 CSR costs and benefi ts

CSR Costs CSR Benefi ts

Costs to
the Corporation

Costs to
Society

Benefi ts to the
corporations

Benefi ts to Society

Businesses have a legal
obligation to manage
the company in the
interest of shareholders
– and not other
stakeholders.

Large capital investments
(e.g., in green
technology) may be
diffi cult to justify to
shareholders who invest
for the short term.

The pursuit of social goals
dilutes businesses ’
primary purpose.

Stock devaluation may
occur if fi nancial
analysts see the CSR
initiatives as too costly.

The effi cient use of
resources will be
reduced if businesses
are restricted by CSR in
how they can operate.

Developing and
implementing a CSR
policy will be a
complex, costly, and
time – consuming activity.

CSR costs will be passed
on to consumers and
reduce competitiveness.

CSR places unwelcome
responsibilities on
businesses rather than
on governments or
individuals.

Failing to meet stakeholder
expectations will create
churn.

Stakeholders will place
increasing CSR
demands on
organizations that
commit to CSR.

Employees may fear that
CSR threatens their jobs.

Discourages
government
regulation
and uniform
application of
rules.

Stakeholders
may be
co – opted by
the
corporation.

Marginalized
stakeholders
may remain
marginalized.

Environmental
and social
degradation
may continue
without CSR.

Governments
and social
welfare
organizations
may allow
corporations
to determine
what is in the
public
interest.

CSR – related
costs may
simply be
passed on to
consumers.

CSR can help avoid
excessive
governmental
regulation.

CSR initiatives can
enhance the social
legitimacy of the
corporation.

Socially responsible
actions can be
profi table; CSR can
create cost – saving
improvements.

CSR can improve the
corporation ’ s
reputation.

CSR initiatives will be
attractive to some
investors.

CSR profi les will attract
customers.

Employee motivation
and identifi cation may
be increased.

CSR can enhance their
identity and corporate
culture through values
reinforcement and an
other – orientation.

Discussions about CSR
encourage employees
to think in new ways
and develop new skills.

CSR initiatives may
attract positive media
coverage.

An improved stakeholder
environment will
benefi t the corporation
by reducing churn.

Partnering with other
organizations and/or
third parties to share
ideas can enhance
capabilities, credibility,
visibility, and
reputation.

CSR helps to
correct social
and
environmental
problems caused
by business
operations.

CSR holds
corporations
accountable for
their actions.

CSR leads
corporations to
avoid
externalizing
costs.

Dialogue and
partnerships
among diverse
stakeholders are
encouraged.

CSR programs
encourage
corporations to
see a wider range
of perspectives.

Successful CSR
initiatives lead
other
corporations to
imitate those
initiatives.

CSR contributes to
social justice.

CSR can
supplement
governmental
and social
welfare programs
to improve social
and
environmental
concerns.

Note : The inventories of costs and benefi ts presented here are not intended to be exhaustive. They
represent common arguments for and against a CSR philosophy and/or initiatives.

D
ow

nloaded from
https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com
/doi/ by Florida International U

niversity, W
iley O

nline L
ibrary on [17/10/2022]. See the T

erm
s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com

/term
s-and-conditions) on W

iley O
nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O
A

articles are governed by the applicable C
reative C

om
m

ons L
icense

12 Conceptualizing Corporate Social Responsibility

A second major theme linked to CSR costs for corporations is that social
issues are outside of the responsibility and expertise of businesses.
Governments, not businesses, were designed to address social concerns.
How can managers effectively identify and address social concerns?
Corporations are not responsible for social concerns and lack the skills to
confront them. Corporations should leave social issues to those best suited
to addressing them (Friedman, 1970 ; McMillan, 2007 ).

The fi nal theme is the corporation ’ s loss of power and control. At
various points throughout this book, we address how corporations ’ use of
collaborative decision making requires sharing power and control over
decisions with stakeholders. Also, simply adjusting business policies to
accommodate stakeholder complaints cedes some power to stakeholders.
Some critics of CSR consider power sharing a dangerous proposition
because it represents a concession to stakeholders. They see concessions as
signs of weakness that will encourage other stakeholders to make demands
and push around the corporation. Corporations must be free to pursue
their business operations, and accommodating stakeholders could interfere
with that mandate.

CSR Costs for Society

The dominant concern surrounding CSR costs for society is that the success
of CSR actually creates harm for many stakeholders. First, if CSR efforts
are successful, there will be no government regulation of business. In
essence, the CSR efforts become a form of industry self – regulation.
Corporations favor self – regulation over government regulation because it is
cheaper and corporations control the content and enforcement of the rules.
Application can be spotty if the CSR is not codifi ed into a specifi c set of
self – regulatory guidelines. If CSR practices are assumed to be self – regulation
but are not formalized, corporations are free to choose whether or not to
engage in the suggested CSR practices. This includes the possibility that
some corporations will simply ignore the rules in favor of operating in their
own self – interest and produce negative consequences for society. CSR initia-
tives cannot substitute for government regulation of business. If CSR is
ignored or is superfi cial, there will be social and environmental degradation.
Society becomes a worse place due to business practices.

The second theme concerns the role of governments versus corporations
in supporting social welfare and is interrelated with the fi rst theme of self –
regulation. Society may suffer if corporate efforts are expected to substitute
for government efforts to address social problems. Corporations should not
make decisions that previously were made by democratically elected govern-
ments and social welfare organizations. Ideally, governments should be
more aware of and better suited to addressing the social concerns and

D
ow

nloaded from
https://onlinelibrary.w