Issues Management: Spin or Genuine Commitment?

Issues management, of late, seems to be the area of Public Relations that sparks off a lot of debate. Many critics have slammed issues management as allegedly unethical in the view that it is all about spinning and protecting a firm’s reputation in the eyes of its publics. This essay aims to take the stand that issues management is both spin and a genuine long-term commitment to stakeholders by using an illustration of the McDonald’s Animal Welfare Programme.

First and foremost, what can be considered an issue? An issue is when “there is a gap between stakeholder expectations and an organisation’s policies, performance, products or public commitments.” Some traits of an issue are that an issue is usually long-standing, slowly developing, or predictable and it is impactful on an industry or product category, it can be identified, monitored and managed as it emerges and it can be brought into the public arena (or at least fuelled) by protagonists or activists and reported on by the media.

The definition of issues management by The Issue Management Council (IMC) is that it is the process used to align organisational activities and stakeholder expectations. Coates, Jarratt and Heinz in their 1986 publication defined issues management as the “organised activity of identifying emerging trends, concerns or issues likely to affect an organisation in the next few years and developing a wider and more positive range of organisation responses toward the future.” In addition, Galloway and Kwansah-Aidoo defined it as a central concept in both academic and practitioner public relations literature. While Crane and Palese propose that issues management is “something that will enable organisations to perform in a way that will help them achieve their objectives – which in this field, often have to do with protecting the organisation’s image or reputation”. For further understanding, Ogilvy PR (a global public relations agency) defines issues management as an ongoing process of aligning corporate behaviour with stakeholder expectations. All the definitions talk about the same thing, issues management is basically about putting an organisation in favourable light in the eyes of its publics by managing issues of public concern.

The phrase "issue management" was coined by Howard Chase in April of 1976 and primarily consists of five steps, issue identification, issue analysis, issue change strategy options, issue action program and evaluation of results. It is said that issue management can be used either to promote or for the forestalment of social good.

Any issues management campaign is built upon the identification of the issue and the target groups for the issue. In knowing this, it is easier to devise a way of communicating the issue and then influencing it.

Spin, in the area of public relations, holds the definition that it is “the art of intentionally manipulating public opinion in support of one’s products, services, ideas, or issues without regard for truth or reality” . It is often deeply biased, and holds negative connotations of being a manipulation of public opinions.

�Damage control’ however, is of a lesser extremity in that it refers to an effort to restrict or lessen damage caused by an issue to an organisation, with the same objective of maintaining or improving an organisation’s image or reputation.

There are many critics who are keen to launch an attack against the issue management aspects of Public Relations. They all take a similar stand: Public Relations in general – and issue management techniques in particular – can be used improperly or unethically for the misinterpretation or distortion of issues that are a genuine public concern.

It appears that part of the problem with issue management is the context and language that is used. In essence, as Tony Jaques puts it, “citizens seated around the kitchen table attempting to block proposed legislation on an �oily rag budget’ are fundamentally no different to the suited executives at the board table attempting to do the same, although the resources available and the stakes at risk may be different, the citizen groups will more often claim the moral high ground through their claims of acting to support community ethical standards in the face of corporate excess”. The two groups are basically fighting for the same thing, but perhaps for different purposes.

The issues management industry is attempting to build a reputation of integrity. Many public relations clients have dug themselves into an ethical hole and the industry has been badly marred. It is only of thanks to the actions of pressure groups that business is being forced to improve its ethical stance.

An important criterion for issue management is agenda-setting. Agenda-setting