How does one distinguish between the role played by persons with the title Public Relations, Corporate Affairs and Corporate Relations in Australia’s largest companies?
These questions are sparked by an article ‘‘Corporate Affairs Calls in Big Guns’ in The Australian on Friday the 13th of November by Geoff Allen, the eminent and well-respected Founder of the Centre for Corporate Public Affairs.
His article, written on the back of the appointment of former WA premier, and ex journalist, Alan Carpenter to a ‘corporate affairs’ role at Wesfarmers argues that this is evidence of a raise in ‘public’ or ‘corporate affairs’ as a high-level strategic function within companies.
He claims corporate affairs executives are the “acknowledged authority on social and political environments” and that these executives now manage a number of functions that have hitherto been managed at a “lower level” including government relations and public policy, media and communications and internal communications.
And those who are best equipped to fulfill these roles, claims Allen, are principally those with a high-profile political experience.
There should be no questioning of Allen’s central argument that it’s becoming critically important for major companies that they begin to understand, and deal more effectively, with their social and political environment; also his arguments for this to be integrated into strategic planning. And yes, people who understand the political process are a vital part of this.
However, as a ‘pr veteran’ it seems to me that Allen (and others) bend over backwards to avoid using the term ‘public relations’ despite the fact that in its purest form it is designed to incorporate most of the very principles that Allen espouses.
In fact in Wikipedia many of the functions Allen mentions are seen as a sub-set of public relations! Furthermore, the practice of public relations is ethically controlled through bodies such as PRIA and PRSA and hundreds of universities worldwide which teach public relations.
In the US there is even a trend towards the creation of a new function of Chief Communications Officer – which is incorporates a strong public relations bias.
Where then do Public Affairs, Corporate Affairs and Corporate Relations sit as functions, roles or titles?
A couple of decades back Public Affairswas an alternative term that was in vogue. However, that terminology is now deemed dated and too restrictive as illustrated by the role of the Institute of Public Affairs.
Allen’s use of the term Corporate Affairs raises many questions. Is it a discipline or a function? Is there a body of knowledge around it? Is it taught in University? How does one set out to develop a career in Corporate Affairs? What knowledge does one need about communication? Who does one look up to as ultimate practitioners of the craft?
Corporate Affairs is not in Wikipedia. Google it and you end up with a whole lot of mentions related to the Australian Corporate Affairs Commission. Corporate Relations does have references in some relative context, but they pale in significance compared to public relations.
It’s not just an Australian issue. – similar questions are being asked in the US. However as a previous blog outlines the PRSA is embarking on a major exercise to change perceptions about, and revive the reputation of, PR called the Business Case for Public Relations. I suspect that will help.
However, the most important question out of all this is not about what Corporate Affairs means. It’s what does this all mean for public relations. More specifically what does this mean for the graduates in public relations trying to climb up the ladder within companies?
Allen’s article is evidence that more debate is required with respect to the roles, titles, positions and responsibilities of those working internally within Australia’s largest organisations in what might loosely be referred to as ‘communications’.
Comments, clarification – and opposing points-of-view – are welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Whilst an interesting point for debate, I think Geoff Allen’s piece dances around the central point of Mr Carpenter’s appointment. He is employed to open doors. He knows people, and Wesfarmers needs those doors opened. “Corporate affairs” is a conveniently vague title to give someone who is employed essentially as a lobbyist, without the odium of the title in the state that gave us Brian Burke.
We are debating the delicacies of what the title means without calling it for what it is – lobbyist.
Wesfarmers wants to know what the government is thinking, what decisions it intends to make and why before they are made. A former Premier can give that advice, and open doors on all sides of politics. This could be extremely useful, particularly given there is a Labor government in Canberra.
I see this less as a raising of the profile of “Corporate Affairs” and more as an attempt to hire a lobbyist on the payroll without the title. You may feel this is cynical. Not at all. I think it is a valid appointment, however I don’t think we should be distracted from the basic point of of it. People with profile and contacts can open more doors than someone without. It’s like the embassy that puts the MI6 operative as 2nd Assistant Cultural Affairs Attache. It hides everything in the name.