by Tom Wheeler
If the Issues Management Council managed issues the way it manages meetings, it would just take a couple of days for big business to dispose of all our problems. That was the impression I got after sitting through its annual conference, which consisted of a fast-paced, dizzying series of 15 presentations spread out across the two days of November 6-7, 1997.
Held in the sumptuous confines of the infamous Watergate Hotel in Washington, DC, the presentations were executed with clockwork precision, each allotted 45 minutes to an hour in which to pitch issues management techniques and strategies before an audience of several dozen corporate PR and communications professionals.
The conference program that I received upon arrival was littered with plenty of fuzzy, warm buzzwords like "social accountability," "promoting civil action," and "creating sustainable development." One priority issue of great concern was "declining community involvement."
"The nature of our work is
as much to keep an organization
out of the media as in it."
-- Golin/Harris Communications
The agenda gave the impression that corporations are actively making efforts to foster more "progressive" thinking and are seriously taking the concerns of consumers, environmentalists and local activists into consideration in their decision-making process. Not surprisingly, the workshops themselves revealed a far different reality, as did the PR company literature on display at the conference.
"The nature of our work is as much to keep an organization out of the media as in it," explained the promo literature for Golin/Harris Communications, Inc., the North American flagship agency for Shandwick PLC.
Has your product been targeted as dangerous or unhealthy by an advocacy group? Well, Golin/Harris is ready to "step in to help the corporation get the correct message out before the issue becomes a crisis and affects product sales and the bottom line."
Mongoven, Biscoe & Duchin, Inc. also had literature out, in which they proudly boasted about their "extensive files on individuals and organizations" which they use "to provide timely information and assessment of their activities and plans." Their prime targets for spying include activists, public interest groups, churches, unions, corporate critics and academia.
Token Dissent
The conference began by giving participants a taste of the "issues" they were being trained to "manage," as representatives from a handful of public interest groups gave presentations.
The first speaker was Thomas W. Knowlton, director of operations for the Council on Economic Priorities (CEP), a New York-based nonprofit organization best known for its consumer guide, Shopping for a Better World.
Knowlton discussed new social accountability standards for corporations that he claimed would "transcend time-zones, language barriers, and developing and industrialized country borders."
CEP, with the assistance of some influential corporations, has come up with a new set of standards called Social Accountability 8000 (SA8000). Corporate participants include such powerful companies as Avon, Eileen Fisher, Sainsbury, Toys 'R' Us, and Otto Versand (which owns Eddie Bauer). Other participants included labor and human rights groups and accounting firms KPMG-Peat Marwick and SGS-ICS.
The kickoff for the program was held previously at Avon Products Inc.'s New York headquarters where the group approved an initial lineup of standards that include no use of child or forced labor, a safe working environment, the right to unionize, and wages sufficient to meet workers' basic needs.
CEP is creating this uniform set of expectations to measure corporate behavior. In 1998, companies can apply to have the accounting firms certify that their factories meet those standards. Knowlton claimed that "millions of consumers in the marketplace will insist on SA8000-approved products" and the CEP seal of approval will reassure consumers that the products they buy aren't made by exploited workers.
The effort has plenty of skeptics, however, among human rights and labor groups. Their concern is that CEP audits, which companies will pay for, will use the monitoring process as a cover to reassure the public without doing anything different. Critics point out that the CEP standards are similar to those of the International Labor Organization, which governments have failed to enforce for decades.
A consumer's-eyes view of current issues came from Wendy Gordon, who gave a presentation on "Women Promoting Civil Action in the Consumption Realm." A former senior project scientist for the Natural Resources Defense Council, Gordon is the co-founder, with actress Meryl Streep, of Mothers & Others, an organization concerned with children's health.
She explained that the primary goal of Mothers & Others is to "stimulate changes in the marketplace." It works to persuade supermarkets to provide organic foods and has promoted the concept of "community-supported agriculture."
The most sobering presentation came from Dr. Michael W. Fox of the Humane Society of the United States, who presented a slide show detailing the horrors of intensive factory farming that seemed to curb the appetites of many participants.
Fox minced no words in presenting the dangers of factory farming, poor diet and the loss of biological diversity as he promoted the idea of "farming without harm," sustainable agriculture and moving away from a meat-based diet. He also described the concept of bioethics, calling it a "holistic philosophy" that gives "equal and fair consideration to the concerns, interests and rights of humankind, animalkind and the environment."
"Unrestrained capitalism is a downward spiral," Fox said bluntly. He advocated for "decentralization of power and control," invoked the concept of "mutual aid" and an emphasis on "cooperative economics."
His presentation appeared to be the only one that caused a few members of the audience to shuffle uncomfortably in their seats. His remarks resonated enough to generate hostile little jokes at his expense from several corporate speakers during the subsequent two days.
Global Hot Air
The Issues Management conference took place just prior to the international conference on global warming in Kyoto, Japan. Dirk Forrister, chairman of the White House Climate Change Task Force, gave issues managers a preview of Kyoto during an industry-friendly presentation titled "Global Warming: International Treaties as Vehicles for Issue Action."
Forrister, who previously worked as a Special Assistant for Policy to Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary (herself a former power utility executive), stressed the Clinton administration's strategy of promoting "market-based" policies and solutions and the need for these solutions to be "flexible, realistic, and achievable." He reiterated the current US position in favor of restricting greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2010, and sarcastically ridiculed as "unrealistic" and "unworkable" the stricter limitations proposed by the European Union, the Alliance of Small Island States and other international participants. After making these brash comments, he jokingly asked if his presentation was "off the record."
Recognizing that some business sectors favor no action whatsoever on global warming, Forrister implored skeptics to simply "look at the array of international proposals" and "take your pick." He was confident, he said gleefully, that the U.S. proposal was most favorable to business interests, because it was a "non-regulatory approach" which is "not about cost but about opportunities," and because it would mobilize "private power finance" as an integral part of its strategy.
The part about mobilizing private finance refers to the concept of "emissions trading," a proposal backed by the U.S., Australia and other foot-draggers, which would allow countries or firms to pay for the right to pollute beyond specific limitations. Under this system, countries that cut emissions beyond specified reductions would receive credits which they could sell to other countries that fail to meet their targets.
Industry lauds the fact that this effort provides a free-market mechanism to reduce global emissions, but it could also allow big polluters to swap their way out of binding obligations, not to mention open big loopholes for non-compliance.
After grousing for awhile that the U.S. position was getting "hammered" by other countries, Forrister cautioned businesses that, indeed, they "may pay," but reassured them that they "have an opportunity to make money on the solutions."
Stomach Turners
During the first afternoon presentation, Martin Christie from Shell International's Group Public Affairs division, took a shot at the Humane Society's Michael Fox, quipping that his presentation would not contain "anything that is going to upset your digestive system as the man did before lunch." He was wrong, at least about me. I almost lost my lunch listening to his arrogant, self-congratulatory presentation about Shell's heartfelt environmental concerns as they relate to its latest venture--drilling for gas in the rainforests of Peru.
I could have sworn I had just drifted into some godforsaken Orwellian nightmare. This was, after all, the same corporation which has been implicated in the murder of Nigerian writer Ken Saro-Wiwa. (For a few details about Shell's current activities, see "Welcome to the Jungle: Shell Invades the Peruvian Amazon," in PR Watch, Fourth Quarter 1997.)
Later that afternoon, an energy policy and planning manager for Sandia National Labs gave a presentation on ways that PR pros can promote "a private sector point of view" and ensure that the issue management process isn't "contaminated with public sector views." He advocated a "public participation process" on issues of concern by carefully convening a panel in which the participants are limited and the objectives are narrowly defined in order to establish "consensus" while simultaneously protecting industry's fundamental interests. (Well, nothing new here. . . .)
The surreal atmosphere of the afternoon concluded with Elisa Puzzouli, the director of issue management at The Prudential Insurance Company of America, who explained Prudential's "very grassroots initiative" to encourage "community involvement." (In reality, Prudential's initiative was launched two years ago by its marketing department to help deflect bad press after getting caught red-handed ripping off hundreds of millions of dollars from individual investors. For details, see "Community Values, Prudential Style" in this issue.)
Tough Times and Desperate Measures
The following day, unfortunately, was not much better. The low spot was a talk by John Nash, vice chairman for the Center for Board Leadership, who was there to report on his organization's 1997 Corporate Governance Survey. There is a "huge crisis in leadership," he said, intoning that these are "tough times to be a CEO."
What kind of tough times? Well, there is less job security, for one thing. "Thirty-five CEOs have lost their jobs in 1997," Nash said ominously.
Gee, that's tough. Of course, these displaced executives--every one of whom is a personal millionaire--have found solace in the form of generous termination packages that are typically worth millions of dollars all by themselves.
Compare this to the tens of thousands of working people downsized in 1997 with little or no compensation. While 80% of the workforce has seen its wages stagnate or decline over the past 15 years, CEO salaries have gone through the roof. How many of the CEOs enduring "tough times" would like to trade places with one of their downsized workers?
In 1996, Disney CEO Michael Eisner's compensation was $189 million--a number which pales in comparison to the $576 million he received in 1997. Nike's billionaire boss, Philip Knight has earned his money exploiting workers in Third World countries under totalitarian rule such as Indonesia and China. Wherever democracy and the issue of human rights have little sway is usually where you'll find Nike.
Philip Knight says he is doing well at a difficult job, going so far as to claim he is providing an opportunity to the workers for a better future. What better future is Knight providing? Well, it will take a woman in Vietnam sewing Nike sneakers over three decades to earn what Knight "earns" in one hour. In the upside-down world of corporate doublespeak, the Nike worker in Vietnam is on the "path to a better future," while Knight and other wealthy CEO's are the ones facing "tough times."
Outside the sycophantic world of the "issues managers," of course, CEO salary and compensation packages are increasingly viewed with seething indignation. There is an obvious, enormous and widening gap between worker's salaries and what corporate executives receive in salary, bonuses and stock options.
This is what Noam Chomsky calls the "tough love" approach. Lots of love and lavish handouts for the opulent executives at the top, tough for everybody else.
Buzzwords
After poking some fun at the Humane Society's presentation, Michael Palese of Bell Atlantic talked about strategies corporations can use to "align corporate communication, reputation management, public policy and market development systems and strategies with the needs and interests of communities."
If you wanted to learn about "State-of-the-Art Technology as a Tool in Global Issue Management," IBM's Harriet Pearson gave a wonderful presentation about IBM's use of the internet to "bolster visibility with Capitol Hill and other key policymakers" and as a "productivity tool for our own staff."
The conference ended with James Lukaszewski, chairman of the Lukaszewski Group. The conference program promised that he would provide "specific techniques, language, and motivation to inspire you to return to your office with the persuasive mindset of a Verbal Visionary." Based on the hype, I was expecting a high-voltage Anthony Robbins-style presentation about how all of us have "unlimited power" waiting to be tapped and unleashed.
Actually, Lukaszewski was a soft-spoken gentlemen who provided such pearls of wisdom as "people don't read much--who's got the time?" and "say less--make it more important."
Lukaszewski has served as a "crisis consultant" for numerous clients including the GAP when it was embroiled in a highly visible sweatshop controversy a couple of years ago. He also served as the first ever "crisis columnist" for PR Tactics, a publication of the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA).
He has written numerous articles including "Coping With Activist Intrusions and Threats" in which he wrote "While the threat of terrorism is no where near as great in the United States as it is in other parts of the world, direct activist action against individuals and their families is becoming a routine tactical choice."
Lukaszewski talked at length about "values," "trust," "integrity", "credibility" and the need to be an "absolutely truthful person." He also spoke of the necessity for verbal visionaries to have an "uncompromising adherence to a code of principles."
Eliminating Problems
A peculiar part of Lukaszewski's presentation focused on why "being a verbal visionary is especially important to women." He noted that "in the battle for attention, the battle for power, the battle to move issues forward, women are at a disadvantage" because they are "up against obstacles more powerful than the glass ceiling." He identified these powerful obstacles as the "verbal ceiling" and the "porcelain ceiling."
The "verbal ceiling" means that "the world is run by middle-aged guys" who "talk a certain way, make signals a certain way" which makes it "difficult for women to have an advantage that men have from the start."
The other powerful ceiling, the "porcelain ceiling" derails women in business meetings because "women executives are lonely, they are usually the only woman in a group of men." Often in meetings, Lukaszewski said, people will be "having a great discussion and the meeting is going fine, suddenly it's 10:15 and what happens? Everybody takes a break and where do the guys go? To a room that says M-E-N. They go to the porcelain," where "the meeting goes on" with the women excluded.
Wow. The biggest obstacle for women in the corporate world is the men's bathroom.
To borrow an overused cliche, "The more things change, the more they stay the same."
