One of the major challenges facing citizen groups campaigning to prevent,
minimise, limit or regulatie socially-irresponsible or
environment-degrading practices of transnational corporations is how to
deal with the corporations' increasing call for 'dialogue' and
'cooperation'. Many transnational corporations say they have seen the
error of their ways and have rectified their mistakes. Eager to do their
best for 'our common future', they claim to be listen to their critics.
Thus 'dialogues' with companies or industry organisations are frequently
portrayed as the way ahead for citizen groups seeking corporate
accountability, rather than 'confrontational' strategies such as boycotts.
What are the dangers and limits of doing so?

An answer requires exploring the ways in which calls for 'dialogue' of
'cooperation' have masked attempts to manipulate public debates; to
silence or neutralise critics; and to create an image of
socially-concerned business.

Knowledge of corporate PR strategies may help activists and concerned
citizens to recognise manipulative strategies and distinguish them from
industry behaviour that is truly indicative of change, and thus be in a
better position to counter such strategies.

To be in a better position to resist corporate attemps to manipulate
public debate and engeneer consent, corporate accountability activists
need to learn how better to distinguish between marketing -selling a
product- and corporate relations - selling industry views (although
manipulation is key to both kinds of activities). 'PR literacy' can be
increased by reading PR textbooks (in particular, glossaries and sections
on issues management and sponsorship) and investigative work on corporate
PR strategies. Spaces for democratic decision-making can be recovered in
various ways:

Trying to limtit opportunities for industry to gather information on activist plans.

For instance, acitivists should ask journalists and others interviewing
them about their funding sources and request to see copies of ther
publications before giving interviews. If they do enter into discussions
with industry, they should try to avoid giving away strategic information
about their financial and human resources and action plans; they should
however, loudly and clearly voice their concerns about what they regard as
the public issue.

Unveiling hidden PR practices

Action groups could set up public data banks on persons involved in
'two-step-communication' (the use of third parties) 'front organisations'
and on corporate-instituted 'grass root organisations'. They could try to
expose publicly the most influental or consciously-manipulative persons or
organisations through their own publications and, if possible, through
other media. They could institute an annual competition for the best
'corporate camouflage' of the year (similar toe existing awards for the
'top polluter, for instance). Legislation requiring politicians,
government officials and health professionals receiving industry funds to
declare that they are doing so could increase transparency in public
debates. Given PR practioners' vital role in engereneering consent to
anti-social business practices, action groups could attempt to expese PR
practitioners' violations of the various voluntary codes of conduct
instituted by major professional PR associations such as the Public
Relations Society of America or the International Public Relation
Association.

Resisting surpression of public issues

The culture of industry secrecy, mechanisms of censorship and silencing
need to be seriously addressed. Health Action International, for example,
is currently co-organising a campaign for public acces to information
underlying decisions giving market approval for new medicinal drugs in
Europe. New coalitions are needed to work for national Freedom of
Information Acts, and against structural censorship in the media. Groups
should do all they can to expose and resist industry attempts to silence
critics.

Trying not to be used to enhance the image of an industry

To prevent, or at least limit, being used to enhance a corporate image,
professional associations and action grouops should continue discussing
all these issues among themselves and astablsh clear policies on funding.
There is a need to explore the long-term structural consequences of NGO's
and social and research institutions replacing dwindling public funds with
industry sponsorships, which they are under pressure to do. Organisations
with a high public standing, such as UN agencies and church organisations,
should be particulary careful not to let themselves be used for image
transfer or to enhance the legitimacy of a criticised company.

Resisting corporate attempts to manipulate public debate

Ideally, this encompasses a dual strategy: publicly exposing attempts to
silence, delay, divert or fudge, on the other hand: while at the same
time, developing and publicising other analyses and alternative visions,
on the other. Given their limited financial resources and humanpower,
however, action groups often have to decide between these two strategies.
Yet greater exchange and new coalitions between industry critics from
different movements - consumer, health, environmental, democratic media,
social justice and women's movements, for instance - may conserve
institutional resources.

Engeneering of Consent is focussing on the ongoing babymilk campaign and
the Counterstrategies developped by Nestlé since the seventies. The
Cornerhouse briefing is dealing with: Corporate PR, The Art of Camouflage
and Deception, Issues Management, Intelligence Gathering and Assessments,
Image Manegement, Suppression of Public Issues, PR Laundering,
Manipulating the Public Debate.

The Engeneering of Consent, Uncovering Corporate PR can be ordered at The
Cornerhouse by email: cornerhouse@gn.apc.org