EvolingroleofPA,McGrath

8/2/2019 EvolingroleofPA,McGrath

1/18

The evolving discipline of publicaffairsConor McGrath1*,y, Danny Moss2z and Phil Harris2x1Dublin, Republic of Ireland2University of Chester, Chester, United Kingdom

Approaching the tenth anniversary of this Journal of Public Affairs, as the editorial

team we offer this extended literature review as our reflection on the evolution anddevelopment of public affairs, both as an academic discipline and a professional

practice. It is a necessarily personal and subjective contribution, highlighting the

issues and areas which we believe represent significant continuing debates. The

article considers how public affairs is, and should be, defined; examines the range

of activities which theorists and practitioners understand as falling within the scope

of corporate public affairs; analyses the relationship between public affairs and

corporate political activity as different though complementary fields; discusses the

importance of the public issues life cycle and the issues management models; and

calls upon the public affairs community to defend the position of public affairs as the

fundamental bridge between the organisation, society and government, in the face of

challenges from other organisational functions. Copyright# 2010 John Wiley & Sons,

Ltd.

Introduction

The first issue of the Journal of Public Affairsappeared in January 2001. To markthe journals tenth anniversary, in this article

we offer an extended literature review whichis intended to provide an insight into howthinking about public affairs has matured anddeveloped, both as an academic discipline anda professional practice. In that first issue of

the Journal of Public Affairs in 2001, theinaugural editorial opened with the commentthat: The past decade has been a period during

which the public affairs function can be said tohave come of age on the UK and European

corporate stage (Harris and Moss, 2001a, p. 6).This tenth anniversary milestone seems to us tobe an appropriate point at which to considerhow far public affairs is being consolidated around the world, both within and beyond thecorporate environment. A special issue of the

journal will appear in 2011, which will offer adiverse range of contributions reviewing thedevelopment of public affairs. We seek hereto capture some of the main ideas and linesof thinking about public affairs as both a

Journal of Public AffairsJ. Public Affairs (2010)Published online in Wiley Online Library(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/pa.369

*Correspondence to: Conor McGrath, 10 NewbridgeAvenue, Sandymount, Dublin 4, Republic of Ireland.E-mail: [email protected] Scholar.zProfessor of Corporate and Public Affairs.xWestminster Chair of Marketing and Public Affairs.

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Public Affairs, 2010DOI: 10.1002/pa


2/18

disciplinary area of study, as well as anincreasingly recognized form of professionalpractice both within the corporate as well as

not for profit and voluntary sectors. In thissense, we see this essay as a form of precursorto the forthcoming anniversary special issue ofthe Journal of Public Affairs, which we hope

will stimulate further reflection and thoughtabout public affairs as well as wetting readersappetite for the forthcoming special issue. Assuch, we would particularly welcome com-ments and reflections from other colleagues,particularly those which consciously contri-bute to the building up of an explicitlyEuropean perspective on public affairs.

It is perhaps important to be clear from theoutset about the almost inevitable limitationsof this or most literature reviews. First, the vastmajority of the literature in the public affairsdomain comes from Western sources (specifi-cally, predominantly US sources), and hencethere is as yet no comprehensive cross-culturaland genuinely global perspective of publicaffairs practice (Meznar, 2002; Harris andFleisher, 2005). Nevertheless, the increasinginternational range of academic and professional

contributions to the literature suggests a grow-ing possibility of challenges to what has beenthus far an almost exclusively Anglo-Saxon

view of public affairs. What is needed now isfor academic research to catch up with thestartling growth in public affairs practice inmany regions and nations, which we may beaware of anecdotally but which scholarly workis often slow to capture adequately. Secondly,as Windsor (2005, p. 401) notes: There is nogrand theory of public affairs no integra-tive or overarching framework, but he does

also go on to draw attention to the varioustheoretical debates which surround this areaand which can inform academic thinking onpublic affairs an argument that is also sup-ported by Getz (2002) and Griffin (2005). InSchulers (2002) view, this lack of a single central theory makes it problematic forresearchers to extend knowledge, while otherssuggest that a grand theory is unachievableand even if it could be achieved, it wouldbe undesirable (Hillman, 2002). There is a large

volume of academic literature around variousaspects of public affairs, but this has tended toemerge in a piecemeal fashion rather than

as part of a concerted effort to build a unifiedbody of knowledge. These two considerationsalone might be capable of generating sufficientthought and work to fill the pages of this

journal for the next decade.

Defining public affairs

Public affairs, like so many other functional andprofessional fields, has witnessed a growinginterest in attempts to define what might

constitute best practice. Here attempts todefine best practice face something of afundamental conundrum in that there is nouniversal academic consensus about what ismeant by the term public affairs (Fleisher andBlair, 1999). Unsurprisingly, this has the effectof producing often quite tortuous and circularscholarly debate. Moreover, this lack of scholarlyconsensus is arguably mirrored in the diverseapproaches which organizations appear totake to the organization and practice of public

affairs. There is also the difficulty that publicaffairs tends to be used differently acrosscultures. Public affairs may be nothing morethan a euphemism for lobbying; it may referto the nexus of politics, management andcommunication whereby an organization seeksto deal with external public policy challenges;it can suggest a broader engagement withissue management across the range of corpor-ate stakeholders; or it is (particularly in the US)simply the preferred way in which a bodydescribes its public relations function (Arm-

strong, 1982). The most prominent publicrelations theorist, James Grunig, has written in a report on evaluation in public affairs that,we will use the terms public affairs andpublic relations interchangeably (Grunigand Grunig, 2001, p. 2). One suggested pointof distinction between these two disciplinaryfields has been that, Public affairs is themanagement of issues, whereas publicrelations is the management of the interfacebetween the company and the outside world


Conor McGrath et al.


3/18

(cited in Harris et al., 1999, p. 209). Thisargument is reinforced by a Canadian lobbyist,Duncan Edmonds who has suggested: Public

relations sold the corporation to society,whereas public affairs educated the corpor-ation about the outside world. Public affairssensitized the corporation to what society

wanted the corporation to do (Sawatsky,1987, p. 70).

One US consultant sees the three keycomponents of public affairs as being com-munications, government relations, and publicissues management but goes on to note thathow professionals describe themselves is vari-able The term public affairs is ambiguous

because some government relations and publicrelations practitioners have adopted publicaffairs as their title, even though they areinvolved in only one component of it (Steckm-est, 1982, p. 40). This problem of a lack ofclearly understood identity for public affairs isone that we noted a decade ago in that firstissue of the Journal of Public Affairs: Para-doxically, at a time when there are morepractitioners than ever who, at least nominally,are employed in public affairs departments/

functions, the term public affairs remainsone that is surrounded by ambiguity and mis-understanding. In short, public affairs remainsa function in search of a clear identity (Harrisand Moss, 2001b, p. 102).

According to a pamphlet written by a formerBritish civil servant, Public Affairs is a termrather wider than Government Relations. Itis when an Interest Group has a wide rangeof relationships with government and thepolitical process, locally, nationally and inter-nationally; in the UK, its chief part is about

relations between an Interest Group and theCentral Government (Morris, 1997, p. 4). Thus,public affairs is said to be more than governmentrelations, yet relations with government is itschief part! A London-based consultant has toldone of the authors that the term public affairsitself is not yet universally accepted by pra-ctitioners, or the activities which it encompassesfully agreed: I suspect if you read any brochuresof any of the firms, theyre all the same . . . butthey wont really tell you what public affairs is

and that is really because, as an industry, weare still struggling to find out.

Drawing on a synthesis of views from some

of the leading scholars and exponents of publicaffairs, it appears that in very general terms,public affairs encompasses all corporate func-tions related to the management of an organi-zations reputation with external audiences usually including lobbying or governmentrelations, media relations, issues managementand community relations (Post, 1982; Toth,1986; Dennis, 1996; Fleisher, 2001; Harris andFleisher, 2005; Lerbinger, 2006). It is import-ant to note a focus on reputation. Meznar andNigh (1995, p. 975), for instance, emphasise

this aspect when they define public affairsas the organizational function responsible formaintaining external legitimacy by managingthe interface between an organization and itssocio-political environment. The idea here isessentially that an organization must have wona measure of social legitimacy (Shaffer, 1995,p. 501) as a necessary precondition to being ina position to achieve political goals (Oberman,2008) though there is a somewhat circularargument here since legitimacy not only pre-

cedes public affairs but is constantly strength-ened or damaged as a result of the firmspolitical engagement.

As one scholar of EU lobbying has suggested:Public affairs may be defined as the manage-ment skill that internalizes the effects of theenvironment in which an organisation oper-ates and externalizes actions to influence thatenvironment (Pedler, 2002, p. 4). A similar

view was expressed by Post (1982, p. 30)when he asserted that, the critical role of thepublic affairs unit is to serve as a window out

of the corporation, enabling management toact in the external environment, and a windowin through which society influences corpor-ate policy and practice. This duality by

which public affairs seeks both to influencepublic policy in the organizations favour andto ensure that issues of importance to the

wider world are reflected within the organiz-ations internal thinking is reflected in vanSchendelens (2010) insightful and thoughtfulconceptualization of EU public affairs manage-


The evolving discipline of public affairs


4/18

ment, and has been characterized well byFleisher (1998, p. 7) as the effort to potentiallybring alignment between organisational and

public policy. Perhaps one of the most dra-matic examples of how public affairs can relateto another functional area within organizationsis found in the case of Americas B-1 bomber.Its manufacturers gave their political consult-ants equality with the purchasing agents in theselection of suppliers and parts manufacturersfor the aircraft. Eureka! They gave a stake in theB-1s future to people in all 435 congressionaldistricts, assuring continued productionregardless of expert criticism by rivalsand other opponents (Wittenberg and Witten-

berg, 1989, p. 6). While an extreme example,this case does illustrate how public affairsrelates to everything else that any organizationdoes.

A potentially interesting way of thinkingabout public affairs was expressed by Meznarand Nigh (1995) in their concept that thefunction acts as a buffer and/or bridge. Bythis, they suggest that some public affairs acti-

vities are intended to buffer the organizationfrom external challenges here, we might see

public affairs in having a somewhat defensiverole, in trying to protect the organization fromstakeholder demands and legislative require-ments. As they put it, an organization engagedin buffering either resists environmentalchange or tries to control it (Meznar andNigh, 1995, p. 976). Conversely, other publicaffairs activities are designed to bridgebetween the organization and the outside

world for instance, more proactively seekingto reach out to stakeholders and to meet theexpectations which society wants to place

upon the organization. Here Meznar and Nighgo on to assert (1995, pp. 976977) that, Inbridging, firms promote internal adaptationto challenging external circumstances. Anyorganization might reflect either of theseapproaches to varying degrees or bothsimultaneously, since they are not mutuallyincompatible, by buffering on one issue andbridging on another. A further dichotomy isexpressed by Hillman and Hitt (1999) in theirdivision of political activity by firms as being

relational (by which companies seek tobuild long-term relationships with governmentacross a range of public policy issues) or

transactional (suggesting that politicalparticipation is less regular and more focusedon individual issues). Support for this dis-tinction is found in a study of businessgovernment relationships in China (Luo,2001), and in another comparing China and

America (Gao, 2006). Post and Kelley draw onthe duality of public affairs to emphasise theconnection between its external and internalessentials:

The legitimacy of the public affairs func-

tion is tied to its effectiveness as a means oforganizational interaction with the political

and social environment. The success of

public affairs managers, however, is tied to

their ability to span the boundary between

the organization and the environment

that is, they must have internal credibility

with senior and operating managers

and external credibility with stakeholder

groups (1988, p. 353).

A summary of these different perspectivesof public affairs in terms of the key descriptorsused by different authors is provided inFigure 1 below.

The scope of corporate public

affairs

As we have already seen, there is a lack ofconsensus over what public affairs is saidby academics to involve. This does make itproblematic to conceptualize research in the

field, and thus to utilize existing work tosuggest what best practice might look like.One commonly adopted definition of corpor-ate public affairs states that it is the manage-ment function responsible for interpreting thecorporations non-commercial environmentand managing the corporations responsesto the environment (Foundation for Public

Affairs, 1999, p. 2). That, though, is undeniablygeneral and leaves unsaid both whether this isdone in a reactive or proactive manner (Grant,




5/18

1983) and precisely what activities might besaid to constitute public affairs. We havepreviously suggested that,

The lingua franca of what appears to be

the principal two arms of public affairs

government relations/lobbying and com-

munity relations/corporate responsibility

can be seen as dialogue at both a societal

and government level. By implication,

those working in the public affairs field

increasingly are required not only to be

proficient communicators, but to have a

sound appreciation of how the political

parties work, develop policy, are influ-

enced, run campaigns and are funded.

Moreover, the type of issues and challenges

that normally fall within the public affairs

domain generally require far more com-plex and sophisticated solutions than those

required when tackling market-related

promotional campaigns (Harris and Moss,

2001b, p. 108).

Others suggest alternative boundaries(McGuire, 1982; Post et al., 1983; Stanbury,1988; Hoewing, 1996; Fleisher and Blair, 1999;Richards, 2003; Hawkinson, 2005; Showalterand Fleisher, 2005). For instance, Carroll (1996)argues that corporate public affairs encom-

Authors Date Key Descriptor/

Metaphor

Implied Core

Role for PublicAffairs

Descriptor of the

Role

Meznar and Nigh 1995 Buffer or Bridge Interfacing role

Boundaryspanning

PA helps cushion

the organizationfrom outside attack

& reach out to keystakeholder groups

Hillman and Hitt 1999 Relational vs.Transactional

Political exchangeactivity vs.

PoliticalRelationship

building

PA can eitherengage in short

term politicalengagement-

lobbying, etc orlonger term

relationship

building withGovernment

Post 1982 Windowout and

Windowin

Political boundary

spanner

PA ensures

management haveunderstandingof political realities

[window in] andequally that their

views are knownamongst key

political figures

[window out]

Van SchendelenFleisher

20101998

Political alignment PA focuses onfacilitating and

building

relationships andinteraction with

actors in thepolitical and social

environment so asto align corporate

and public policies

Figure 1. Conceptualizing public affairs.




6/18

passes public policy, issues management andcrisis management, while Marcus and Irion(1987) suggest that corporate public affairs

departments generally have four key functions government relations, issues management,PR and community affairs. Mack (1997, p. 5)suggests government relations, PR, communityrelations, educational support, philanthropyand the like. It is perhaps telling that a recenthandbook of public affairs written by andfor practitioners in the UK includes chaptersdealing with lobbying, media relations, crisismanagement, issues management, stakeholderrelations and corporate social responsibility(Thomson and John, 2007).

Of course, like many organizational func-tions, it is perhaps only to be expected that theboundaries of public affairs might change overtime a fact that a number of scholars haveacknowledged (Baysinger and Woodman,1982; Moore, 1982; Titley, 2003; Holcomb,2005; Johnson and Meznar, 2005). Indeed, a1982 survey of almost 400 firms by Post et al.indicated that while the two activities mostcommonly mentioned were community rela-tions and government relations, the respon-

dents to that study did not include otheractivities which are by now commonly to befound in public affairs. These include crisismanagement, issues management or employeerelations which is often currently relevant inthe context of grassroots lobbying (Lord, 2000;Hawkinson, 2005). In addition, the boundariesof the practice vary according to regionallocation. A recent survey of practitioners in

Asia (Centre for Corporate Public Affairs andPublic Affairs Council, 2009) lists 21 activities

which are considered part of public affairs

there; the first 11 of these are core activitiesmentioned by the majority of respondents:

Corporate communications.

Corporate social responsibility. Crisis management.

Community relations. Issues management.

Media relations. Employee communications. Philanthropy.

Stakeholder relations. Government relations. Trade association oversight.

Most of these activities might commonly beconsidered components of public affairs inorganizations in Western democracies, althoughthe relative importance of each may be some-

what different. Other activities which wouldnot normally be considered part of publicaffairs in an Anglo-Saxon context wereincluded by respondents to this Asian study notably, corporate marketing (43% of respon-dents), brand image (40%), investor relations(23%) and advertizing (20%). These results are

somewhat at variance with another recentsurvey of Asian practitioners, in which respon-dents were asked to assess the importance of

various activities. Here, political activity wasranked much higher, with several descriptors(such as advocacy, government affairs, lob-bying and political monitoring) being ratedas important or very important by between44% and 75% of respondents (Public Affairs

Asia, 2009).

What these findings appear to suggest is

that public affairs is a function in whichpractitioners and academics are still definingand redefining the boundaries in effect it isa function still searching for a clear identity.

While we first made this charge 10 years ago,the inability of scholars and professionals toreach a common, settled, definition of publicaffairs is as true today as it was then. Perhaps,though, we should be more optimistic and takethis as healthy evidence of the continuing

vitality of public affairs. Practitioners are con-stantly expanding the function, and academics

will face a continual challenge to keep pacewith real-world developments. This is as itshould be, and the Journal of Public Affairs

will continue to serve as a forum for thisdialogue.

Corporate political activity

There is now a significant body of academicwork, most often found under the rubric ofcorporate political activity, which is arguably




7/18

better conceptualized and certainly moreempirically driven than its public affairscounterpart (Griffin, 2005). This scholarly

niche does not wholly map onto the fullspectrum of what might be considered publicaffairs, but certainly connects with key com-ponents of it (Windsor, 2002, 2005; Keim, 2005;Dahan, 2009). Getz (1997, p. 33), for example,accepts that if corporate political action isdefined (as it is by some) as being made up ofactions by firms which are intended toinfluence government policy, then it doesnot include many standard public affairsfunctions that may be directed toward thesocial environment. Interestingly, this is work

which tends to be undertaken by business/management academics, while public affairsresearch is largely pursued by political scien-tists. It is predominantly US-based, but isbeginning to inform research undertaken inother national contexts (Gao, 2006; Tian andDeng, 2007).

This school of work pays much closerattention than does public affairs scholarshipto the question of why organizations engage inpolitical activity: while public affairs research

predominantly examines behaviour, corporatepolitical activity research begins by first askingwhat motivates firms to undertake that beha-viour. It tends to be based on an assumptionthat companies will try rationally to maximizetheir profits by utilizing their available resourcesto best effect (Dahan, 2005) although recent

work by Lowery (2007) suggests that the morefundamental purpose of lobbying is to assureorganizational survival. In arriving at thiscomplex calculus, managers have a wide

variety of potential tools at their disposal,

and so corporate political activity researchersconsider why managers might choose toengage in political activity at all and alsorelative to the other activities which theorganization undertakes. This view is explicitabout the fact that within an organization,there is competition between different func-tions for finite resources; that highlights theneed for the public affairs function to make aconvincing case for investment, and to be ableto demonstrate that any investment has been

used effectively and efficiently. Research hassuggested a number of factors which promotethe importance to firms or associations of

corporate political activity, some of which areparticularly instructive for the purposes of thisreview.

Firstly, several studies show a positive link-age between the degree to which a corpor-ation is diversified and its propensity to engagein some form of political activity (Schuler,1996; Hillman and Hitt, 1999; Hillman, 2003;Brasher and Lowery, 2006), although it shouldalso be noted that diversification can itselfmake it more rather more difficult for anyorganization to decide on which public policy

issues it should prioritize (Shaffer and Hillman,2000). Second, the corporate political activityis influenced significantly by the degree to

which a firm is dependent upon government(Dickie, 1984; Wilson, 1985; Grant, 1993;Mitchell et al., 1997; Hillman and Hitt, 1999) either in terms of its sales to public authorities(e.g. pharmaceutical manufacturers in the UKor defence contractors in the US), or of thescope and intensity of regulation in its sector(such as food products or car safety). Third,

competition exists not just between functionalunits within an organization (for resources) butalso between organizations thus we haveempirical evidence that as one organizationbecomes politically engaged, its competitors

will be aware of this and seek to match orexceed their rivals activities (Keim et al.,1984; Gray and Lowery, 1997; Hersch andMcDougall, 2000; Baumgartner and Leech,2001). This situation is often graphicallyillustrated in academic research and thepopular media in accounts of what can come

to look like an arms-race between firms in thesame sector as regards their financial contri-butions to politicians. Fourth, this body ofresearch includes work (Hillman and Keim,1995; Hillman and Hitt, 1999; Keim, 2002;Schuler et al., 2002; Hillman, 2003) whichconsiders corporate political activity in apolitical marketing perspective. Here, studies

view legislators and organized interests as thesupply and demand sides of public policy andconsider information, money and votes as




8/18

goods which may be exchanged in a politicalmarket, and find that they correspond withelements of the public affairs toolbox. And

finally, research in this area also discusses(unlike traditional public affairs scholarship)the integration of a firms business or marketstrategy with its political strategy Keim andBaysinger (1988), Mahon and McGowan (1996)and Baron (1995, 1997), for example, all arguethat neither element can be fully effectiveunless it is closely allied with the otherelement.

Public issues life cycle

One particular area of interest to emerge fromthis review of the literature relates to how anorganization might move towards best practicein public affairs conceptualizing what hasbeen termed the public issues life cycle. Here,issues are regarded as evolutionary ratherthan static (Stanbury, 1988; Meng, 1992; Mack,1997; Tian and Fan, 2008). Issues are thoughtof as potentially having different stages, andthe role of public affairs in responding to issuesshould also be dynamic. Four separate stages

on the continuum of the public issues life cyclehave been suggested by Post (1978):

(I) Changing Public Expectations associetal interests and demands change,so too do peoples views of how respon-sive an organization is to the new environ-ment. This change is often sparked by asingle publication (as, for instance,Rachel Carsons Silent Spring galvanizedthe new environmental activism in the1960s) or it may occur when a series of

events eventually create a tipping point instirring public consciousness. Either way,corporations will be expected to meet orexceed the new standards which societysets.

(II) Political Controversy when socialexpectations reach a certain level, theissue is likely to become politicized, asit is taken on board by legislators, regu-lators and activist groups. At this point,political actors begin to consider how

they should respond to the expectations,often through new or amended laws andregulations.

(III) Development of Legislation once legis-lation is introduced, debated and enacted,societys expectations are being set instone, and organizations will be subjectto new rules which they must work

within.(IV) Government Litigation simply passing a

law or writing a regulation is not the endof the issue (even though it may well beslipping from public consciousness nowas other interests emerge to create anothernew issue). The implementation and over-

sight of the new rules will be subject totransition and negotiation, and litigationmay well occur in order to clarify the rules,

win exemptions and enforce compliance.(In another iteration of the public issueslife cycle, Marx (1990) retains Posts termi-nology for the first three stages, butdescribes this last one as Social Control.)

This model (which is relatively under-uti-lized in the academic literature) has been sum-

marized most succinctly by Wilson (1982) as:The social expectations of yesterday becomethe political issue of today, and the legislativerequirement of tomorrow, and the litigatedpenalties of the day after (quoted in Marx,1990, p. 12). According to Marx (1990, p. 12),the public issues life cycle is so important as tobe the key concept in integrating strategicbusiness and public affairs planning. Whatshould be apparent is that the capacity of apublic affairs unit to influence an issuediminishes progressively as the issue moves

from one stage of its life cycle to the next.Here the obvious implication for public affairsmanagement is that timing is inevitably criticalin any issue management cycle. Hence theimportance that should be attached to the earlyforecasting of trends within the socio-politicalenvironment, to timely engagement with issues

which emerge from that external environment,and to the organizations interaction with itsenvironment. If we overlay this life cycle model

with a consideration of how well equipped an




9/18

organization is to address policy issues, we cansee a similar evolution in reverse.

By the time any issue is at the point of

Government Litigation/Social Control, there isrelatively little scope for that issue to befundamentally affected by an organization.Companies in which public affairs is not apriority may only enter the public issues lifecycle at this final stage. At the penultimatestep on the issues cycle is the Development ofLegislation, and here there is scope for anorganization to seek to attempt some influenceas final policy decisions have not yet beenmade. However, it is quite late in the process tobring about any substantial change as the

broad outlines of policy will have been set bythis point, so organizations may only be ableto have some limited input into the detail oflegislation/regulation. In other words, thereare opportunities for influence, but they aremarginal. Public affairs at these levels isessentially reactive and defensive. As Marx(1990, p. 12) puts it, the chances that at thesephases any organization will have for effec-tively integrating private and public goals inthe companys business plan are very limited.

Thus, firms which only begin their publicaffairs work on the issue during these stagesare inevitably faced with direct and immediatethreats which cannot be simply ignored yetcannot be effectively challenged.

The phase of Political Controversy isgenerally more fruitful territory for the publicaffairs function. Here, the issue is being framedas part of the general political discourse, and anorganization with well-developed public affairscapabilities will be aware of the issue and willbe in a position to assess its possible impact,

thus opening the door to the possibility ofbeing able to positively and proactively engage

with it. Issues management and systematicpolitical monitoring (or environmental scan-ning as some term it) will have alertedcompanies to the issue as it gains intensity,and government relations staff will be activelyinvolved in trying to affect how the issue isunderstood by policymakers. At this level ofengagement, organizations might also have theability to shape and frame the growing public

and political debate on the issue, attempting tosuggest ways in which it could be resolved tothe satisfaction of both the public interest and

the organizations private interest (Watkinset al., 2001; Jaques, 2004; Taminiau and Wilts,2006; McGrath, 2007).

Finally, those organizations in which thepublic affairs function is well organized and

well managed are most likely to be able tointeract effectively with an issue at the earliestpoint in its life cycle, the Social Expectationsstage. These firms will be characterized by acapacity to undertake very sophisticated analy-ses of the socio-political environment andto identify and prioritize issues as they first

emerge. Dialogue between public affairs andbusiness units will produce some understand-ing of whether and how an issue could beof significance to the organization. Crucially,these organizations will also have in placeinternal processes which relate public affairs tobusiness needs. Here, public affairs will haveprogressed from being merely proactive topossessing an explicitly strategic focus. AsMarx (1990, pp. 1314) puts it, firms able toenter the public issues life cycle in this phase

will have developed both a comprehensiveanalysis of the external environment andthe supporting management structures andsystems needed to forge the links betweenbusiness and public affairs planning.

We find similar expositions in Buchholzs(1988) work in which the life cycle stages arecompressed into three phases: (i) PublicOpinion Formation (public expectations/poli-ticization), (ii) Public Policy Formulation(legislative/regulatory) and (iii) Public PolicyImplementation (litigation). Similarly, Lerbin-

ger (2006) suggests four phases: (i) EmergingIssues, (ii) Public Involvement, (iii) Legislativeand (iv) Regulation/Litigation. Both authorsmap their life cycle stages directly onto diffe-rent strategic audiences and choices for theorganization. For Buchholz, in the first stage,an organization is essentially dealing with anidea, and will seek to influence activist groupsthrough the use of PR tools. At the secondstage, the issue is taking the form of legislation,and so elected politicians will be central to the




10/18

organizations lobbying and political activities.Finally, once the issue is enshrined as law,attention shifts to bureaucrats and regulators

as an organization may utilize legal/regulatorymeans to achieve compliance on the bestavailable terms. Similarly, Lerbinger argues thatas issues emerge, organizations will commu-nicate with opinion leaders directly or throughpublications with limited circulations. In hismodel, mass media relations becomes appro-priate as wider public opinion takes up anissue, while lobbying and other political acti-

vity is employed at the legislative stage. Finally,at the point of litigation/regulation, he suggeststhat media relations again become important in

order to influence the public mood aroundthese detailed resolutions. It is worth empha-sizing again the idea that it is only by having thecapacity to deal with issues at an early point intheir life cycle can an organization hope toboth integrate its issues management with itsbusiness strategic planning process, and tomake a significant contribution to how theissue comes to be regarded by the public andpolicymakers (Marx, 1986). Conversely, theissues potential to impact upon the organiz-

ation increases the further along its life cycle itpasses (Keim, 2005). Indeed, Palese and Crane(2002, p. 285) go further, suggesting thatissues should be identified before they cross

what we call the public threshold, or thepoint at which an issue becomes public. At thispoint it is already too late.

Issues management

Another significant theme found within thepublic affairs literature is the debate about

the centrality of issues management as a coreelement of the public affairs function. There isa significant debate around whether or notissues management does in fact belong withinthe ambit of public affairs (Hainsworth andMeng, 1988). Some support the view thatissues management is a component of publicaffairs, whereas others have argued that it is amore overarching corporate activity whichdraws upon public affairs but equally drawsupon other functions. This question of where

issues management should sit within theorganizational structure and whose responsi-bility it is cannot necessarily be resolved

through academic debate, since each organiz-ation will structure issues management as itfeels most appropriate. What does appear to beclear is that issues management is a particularlysignificant component of the work of publicaffairs staff, whose expertize in understandingthe public and governmental policy process

will be critical in any meaningful corporateengagement in such processes. Thus, it is inthe issues management arena that the full valueof public affairs is most likely to be demon-strated to senior management and other

functional units (e.g. marketing, legal, finan-cial, etc.). Indeed, arguably it is in the area ofissues management that public affairs makes itsmost important strategic contribution toorganizational strategy and goal attainment.

This argument is reflected in a series of indi-cators of best practice which has been developedby the Issue Management Council (2005):

an organization has in place systems bywhich current and future issues are ident-

ified; some formal process has been established to

prioritize and analysis issues; there is clarity as to who is responsible for

the issue management process; the person/team charged with managing

each issue is clear, with appropriate levelsof responsibility and accountability;

management regularly reviews performanceand progress in respect of key issues;

there is a formal mechanism by which board-level oversight of issue management is

achieved; issue management is integrated into the

wider processes of strategic planning andstakeholder relations;

the issue management process is regarded ascentral to the planning and implementationof all corporate activity; and

issue management is organized as a funda-mental management role rather than as thesole purview of an individual function orunit.




11/18

The literature reveals a wide variety ofmodels by which organizations operationalizeissues management but one feature which

appears to be widely accepted is recognition ofthe need to draw a distinction between issuesmanagement and strategic planning. In other

words, issues management is generally recog-nized as contributing to strategic planning butultimately the strategic planning process hasbroader concerns related to future businessperformance. It remains common for issuesmanagement and public affairs to work closelytogether in practice, but somewhat lesscommon for them to be formally integrated

within the same department. Greening and

Gray (1994) suggest that the development ofissues management by firms varies accordingto five structural factors: (i) whether it hasbeen formalized into a discrete department; (ii)

whether the company operates a relevantboard-level committee; (iii) the extent to

which the function is resourced; (iv) howwell issues and integrated into businessplanning and (v) the relationship betweenissues managers and business line managers.

Post et al. (1982) found that much greater

cohesion between public affairs and strategicplanning was possible within organizations,with most of their respondents in public affairsstating that they did not review corporateplans for sensitivity to emerging social andpolitical trends. They also found sizeableminorities (in the 3244% range) were notbeing involved in setting priorities for publicissues at corporate level, forecasting social/political trends for other departments, orsetting priorities for public issues. Clearly,two decades ago, public affairs involvement in

strategic business planning was at a relativelyrudimentary stage; Marx (1990) attributes thisin large part to the tension resulting from firms

wishing to decentralize their strategic planningso that business units could respond morespeedily to the market while at the same time

wanting to centralize public affairs so thatthe firm could adopt a consistent and coherentapproach to public policy issues. Dickie (1984)found that public affairs had most influenceover corporate planning when it engaged

in that process with a relatively short-termfocus. That situation appears to have improvedsomewhat (Grant, 1993) over the intervening

period although there is little hard empiricalevidence to this effect, there have at least beenuseful efforts to conceptualize solutions (Heath,1988; Sawaya and Arrington, 1988; Ashley,1996; Shaffer and Hillman, 2000; Watkinset al., 2001; Bronn and Bronn, 2002; Jaques,2002; Palese and Crane, 2002; Mahon et al.,2004). However, as a number of commentatorshave suggested, it remains true that enhancingthe public affairs/corporate planning relation-ship is an important step in improving theoverall responsiveness of the enterprise to a

changing environment (Post et al., 1982, pp.1516). Chase and Crane (1996, p. 138) offer athoughtful call for companies to pay equalattention to strategic profit planning andstrategic policy planning. Chen (2007, p. 293)provides some empirical evidence fromresearch into multinational corporations inChina that there is a positive relationshipbetween the participation of governmentaffairs in strategic management and excellencein government affairs. Activist groups have

recently challenged business to go further inaligning lobbying efforts with corporatestrategy (AccountAbility, 2005). In Asia, forinstance, one survey found that only one-thirdof public affairs practitioners are membersof their firms corporate planning committee,although much larger percentages do havesome involvement in the strategic planningprocess (Centre for Corporate Public Affairsand Public Affairs Council, 2009).

While there are nearly as many definitionsof issues management as there are academic

articles on the subject, several basic featureswhich demand attention by practitioners areclear from the literature (Jones and Chase,1979; Steckmest, 1982; Stanbury, 1988; Gauntand Ollenburger, 1995; Mack, 1997; Heath,2002; Wartick and Heugens, 2003; Heugens,2005; Lerbinger, 2006). First, issues manage-ment has to be concerned with identifyingpotential issues which could impact upon theorganization this is the essential preconditionto all else, as if an issue evades detection then




12/18

nothing can or will be done about it. Second, itis necessary to prioritize issues in terms ofthe extent to which they could matter to the

organization the more important the issueis to the organization (or what researchersterm the issue salience), the more likely theorganization is to engage in political activityintended to influence the outcome; Mack(1997) suggests using the Delphi process toquantity the importance of each issue to theorganization. It is also worth considering thatno organization can pursue each issue in whichit may be interested to the maximum possibleextent, again making prioritization necessary:Political influence used for one purpose may

well be unavailable for another. We expectthat the economic actor uses his assets togather the most valuable basket of plums fromthe political tree (Esty and Caves, 1983, p. 24).The rational organization will further prioritizeissues in such a way as to only focus on those

which are not merely important but also whichare most likely to be influenced effectively(SustainAbility and GPC, 2000) in other

words organizations should concentrate onthose issues which are critical to their strategic

objectives where the organizations input willmake a material difference (Marx, 1990). Third,there is little value in identifying issues unlessthe process then goes on to set objectives(Jaques, 2005), formulate a plan of action inrespect of each, and implement and evaluatethat activity (Oliver and Donnelly, 2007). Herethe organization is arriving at its own internalpolicy position on the issue. And, fourth,issues management must involve the organiz-ation in attempting to influence public policysince each significant issue will become impor-

tant not just to the organization itself but alsoto its stakeholders in government, regulatoryagencies, pressure groups, public opinion andso on (Crable and Vibbert, 1985).

Conclusion: contributions to the

debate

When the Journal of Public Affairs waslaunched 10 years ago, the intention was that

it would encourage both academic and pro-fessional debate about the development ofpublic affairs, and provide a platform to

publish the output of such debates. In parti-cular, we wanted to help stimulate deeperunderstanding of public affairs around the

world, and not just in the US or EU contexts.In this article, which is intended in part as aprecursor to a full tenth anniversary specialissue of the Journal of Public Affairs, we havesought to reflect on some of the principalthemes and debates found within the publicaffairs literature over the past decade. Many ofthese themes have found expression withinarticles published in this journal, or have

inspired or provoked responses that in turnhave been published here. Reviewing therange of articles which have appeared in the

journal during its first decade, it seems clearthat the original aims of the journal have to alarge degree been realized and continue to bemet. The quality and diversity of the content

which has been published in the journal is aremarkable testament to the research andanalysis being undertaken in the public affairsfield. As editors, we are proud to report that

this journal has featured work by some of themost influential scholars and practitioners inour field and by many of those establishingtheir reputations. We have featured extraordi-narily rigorous theoretical work as well asprofoundly insightful professional analysis andcommentary. Reviewing the journals contentover the course of its first decade, we areparticularly struck by the disciplinary diversityof the articles and by the spread of geographi-cal focus which they cover.

In the opening section of this article, we

highlighted the still contested understandingof public affairs that existed a decade ago,and equally, the predominantly Anglo-Saxonbias within the literature. As this review hasrevealed, despite a period of marked growthand maturing of the discipline over the pastdecade, there is little evidence of a consensualdefinition and understanding of public affairsemerging amongst academics or practitioners.Does this suggest that public affairs remains (as

was suggested 10 years ago) a discipline in




13/18

search of a clear identity; or is this fluidityabout the precise boundaries of public affairsa sign of healthy and vibrant disciplinary

evolution? On balance, we favour the latterjudgement, albeit that such fluidity can anddoes at times threaten to undermine the statusand position of public affairs within what areoften contested organizational hierarchies.

However, in many senses, arguably theeffectiveness and value of the public affairsrole is best realized when the function doesstep outside the traditional organizationalhierarchy, acting (as it should) as the organ-izational conscience and balance checkagainst what might otherwise be the over-

riding profit motive driver in corporatedecision making. Recognition of such a rolefor public affairs is, in part, evidenced by thegrowing significance attached to the issuesmanagement function in organizations, and tothe recognition that public affairs may be thebest placed function to oversee the effectivemonitoring and management of key issues thatmay challenge organizational goals and policies,or equally, create tremendous opportunitiesfor organizational growth. As this review has

shown; however, the challenge for public affairsgoing forward is to retain its lead position inmanaging the organizational issues managementprocess in the face of increasing encroachmenton this role from other functions.

This review has highlighted growing inter-national acceptance and recognition of publicaffairs in countries and regions outside thetraditional stronghold of public affairs practiceand scholarship the western world. Ofcourse, with international expansion comesa new cycle in the emergence and reformula-

tion of the boundaries of the public affairsdiscipline. For example, evidence from studiesin Asia cited in this paper suggest a far broaderunderstanding of what might be expected tofall within the boundaries of public affairs thanone would expect in most western organiz-ations. Yet even here there appear to becontradictions in the evidence, with someresearch pointing to a more conventional viewof public affairs amongst Asian practitioners,involving such core activities as government

relations, political monitoring, lobbying andadvocacy. What does seem clear is that theappetite for public affairs continues to grow

around the world, perhaps driven by the oftenclaimed convergence of major issues affectingmany parts of the world, which often demandglobal political solutions.

We believe that the next decade is morelikely to be one of even greater social,economic and political upheaval as economicpower shifts relentlessly towards the rapidlygrowing developing economies, and as newglobal priorities such as financial reform,climate change and terrorism assume evengreater prominence. Against such a backdrop,

there is likely to be a growing need for highlyskilled and experienced public affairs pro-fessionals capable of analyzing and interpret-ing and even anticipating major environ-mental trends and developments, and capableof counselling organizational leaders abouthow best to respond to the challenges thatsuch trends present. It is the unique positionof public affairs at the nexus of business,government and civil society that positionsit to play a key role balancing organizational

and societal interests. The Journal of PublicAffairs will hope to be a vehicle for exploringand disseminating thinking about these devel-opments and helping to push the boundaries ofthe public affairs discipline forward.

In that spirit, we close with a request thatacademic and professional colleagues continueto submit their best work to this journal. Sinceits launch, we believe that the Journal ofPublic Affairs has become an indispensableguide to the practice and study of publicaffairs. To maintain, and even surpass, that

achievement over the next decade, we relyupon a continuous flow of high impact andhigh quality submissions. A special issue willbe produced in 2011 to properly mark ourtenth anniversary, and will present a number ofcontributions reviewing the current state ofpublic affairs and predicting future trends. Inthis general survey of the field, we have tried toshare our perspective on the key elements ofpublic affairs and to highlight themes whichseem to us to be particularly likely to generate




14/18

interesting and productive work in the years tocome. Over the next decade, we will continueto focus on our central concern of how

organizations relate to government and society,but are equally determined to maintain thisjournals emphasis on multi-disciplinary app-roaches. Our tradition of encouraging bothacademic and professional insights to publicaffairs will be maintained, and it is with agenuine sense of anticipation that we lookforward to the future submissions receivedfrom colleagues.

Biographical NotesConor McGrath is an Independent Scholar,and Deputy Editor of the Journal of PublicAffairs. He was Lecturer in Political Lobbyingand Public Affairs at the University of Ulster inNorthern Ireland from 1999 to 2006. His booksinclude Lobbying in Washington, Londonand Brussels: The Persuasive Communi-

cation of Political Issues (2005), Challengeand Response: Essays on Public Affairs and

Transparency (2006, co-edited with Tom

Spencer), Irish Political Studies Reader: KeyContributions (2008, co-edited with EoinOMalley), and The Future of Public Trust:Public Affairs in a Time of Crisis (2008, co-edited with Tom Spencer). He edited acollection of three books published in 2009 Interest Groups and Lobbying in the UnitedStates and Comparative Perspectives;InterestGroups and Lobbying in Europe; and InterestGroups and Lobbying in Latin America,

Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.Danny Moss is Professor of Corporate and

Public Affairs at the University of Chester. Priorto moving to Chester, he was co-Director of theCentre for Corporate and Public Affairs at theManchester Metropolitan University BusinessSchool, and Programme Leader for the Uni-

versitys Masters Degree in InternationalPublic Relations. He also held the post ofDirector of Public Relations programmes at theUniversity of Stirling where he established thefirst dedicated Masters Degree in PublicRelations in the UK. He is also the co-organiser

of Bledcom, the annual Global PublicRelations Research Symposium. Danny Mossis co-editor of theJournal of Public Affairs and

author of over 80 journal articles and books,the latest of which is Public Relations Cases:International Perspectives (co-edited withMelanie Powell and Barbara DeSanto).

Phil Harris is Executive Dean of the Facultyof Business, Enterprise and Lifelong Learning(and Westminster Chair of Marketing andPublic Affairs) at the University of Chester.He was previously Professor of Marketing atthe University of Otago in New Zealand, andCo-Director of the Centre for Corporate andPublic Affairs at Manchester Metropolitan

University Business School. He is joint found-ing editor of theJournal of Public Affairs andamember of a number of international editorialand advisory boards. He has published over150 publications in the area of communi-cations, lobbying, political marketing, publicaffairs, relationship marketing and inter-national trade. His latest books are EuropeanBusiness and Marketing (with Frank Macdo-nald, 2004), The Handbook of Public Affairs(with Craig Fleisher, 2005), Lobbying and

Public Affairs in the UK (2009), and ThePenguin Dictionary of Marketing (2009).

References

AccountAbility. 2005. Towards Responsible Lobby-

ing: Leadership and Public Policy. AccountAbil-

ity: London.

Armstrong RA. 1982. What is public affairs? In The

Public Affairs Handbook, Nagelschmidt JS (ed).

Amacom: New York; 37.

Ashley WC. 1996. Anticipatory management: link-ing public affairs and strategic planning. In Prac-

tical Public Affairs in an Era of Change: A

Communications Guide for Business, Govern-

ment, and College, Dennis LB (ed). University

Press of America: Lanham, MD; 239250.

Baron D. 1995. Integrated strategy: market and

nonmarket components. California Manage-

ment Review 37(2): 4765.

Baron D. 1997. Integrated strategy, trade policy and

global competition. California Management

Review 39(2): 145169.




15/18

Baumgartner F, Leech B. 2001. Interest niches and

policy bandwagons: patterns of interest group

involvement in national politics. Journal of

Politics 63(4): 11911213.Baysinger BD, Woodman RW. 1982. Dimensions of

the public affairs/government relations function

in major American corporations. Strategic Man-

agement Journal 3(1): 241.

Brasher H, Lowery D. 2006. The corporate context

of lobbying activity. Business and Politics 8(1):

123.

Bronn PS, Bronn C. 2002. Issues management as a

basis for strategic orientation. Journal of Public

Affairs 2(4): 247258.

Buchholz RA. 1988. Adjusting corporations to the

realities of public interests and policy. InStrategic Issues Management: How Organiz-

ations Influence and Respond to Public Inter-

ests and Policies, Heath RL (ed). Jossey-Bass: San

Francisco; 5072.

Carroll A (ed). 1996. Business & Society: Ethics

and Stakeholder Management, 3rd edn South-

western: Cincinnati.

Centre for Corporate Public Affairs, Public Affairs

Council. 2009. State of Public Affairs in Asia

2009. Centre for Corporate Public Affairs and

Public Affairs Council: Sydney and Washington.

Chase WH, Crane TY. 1996. Issue management:dissolving the archaic division between line and

staff. In Practical Public Affairs in an Era of

Change: A Communications Guide for

Business, Government, and College, Dennis

LB (ed). University Press of America: Lanham,

MD; 129141.

Chen Y-RR. 2007. The strategic management of

government affairs in China: how multinational

corporations in China interact with the Chinese

government. Journal of Public Relations

Research 19(3): 283306.

Crable RE, Vibbert SL. 1985. Managing issues andinfluencing public policy. Public Relations

Review 11(2): 316.

Dahan N. 2005. A contribution to the conceptual-

ization of political resources utilized in corporate

political action. Journal of Public Affairs 5(1):

4354.

Dahan NM. 2009. The four Ps of corporate political

activity: a framework for environmental analysis

and corporate action. Journal of Public Affairs

9(2): 111123.

Dennis LB (ed). 1996. Practical Public

Affairs in an Era of Change: A Communications

Guide for Business, Government, and College.

University Press of America: Lanham, MD.Dickie RB. 1984. Influence of public affairs offices

on corporate planning and of corporations on

government policy. Strategic Management Jour-

nal 5(1): 1534.

Esty D, Caves R. 1983. Market structure and

political influence: new data on political expen-

ditures, activity, and success. Economic Inquiry

21(1): 2438.

Fleisher CS. 1998. Are corporate public affairs

practitioners professionals? A multi-region com-

parison with corporate public relations. Paper

presented at the Fifth Annual Bled Symposium onInternational Public Relations Research.

Fleisher CS. 2001. Emerging US public affairs prac-

tice: the 2000R PA model. Journal of Public

Affairs 1(1): 4452.

Fleisher CS, Blair NM. 1999. Tracing the parallel

evolution of public affairs and public relations: an

examination of practice, scholarship and teach-

ing. Journal of Communication Management

3(3): 276292.

Foundation for Public Affairs. 1999. Triennial

Survey: The State of Corporate Public

Affairs. Foundation for Public Affairs: Washing-ton, DC.

Gao Y. 2006. Corporate political action in China

and America: a comparative perspective.Journal

of Public Affairs 6(2): 111121.

Gaunt P, Ollenburger J. 1995. Issues management

revisited: a tool that deserves another look. Pub-

lic Relations Review 21(3): 199210.

Getz KA. 1997. Research in corporate political

action: integration and assessment. Business &

Society 36(1): 3272.

Getz KA. 2002. Public affairs and political strategy:

theoretical foundations. Journal of PublicAffairs 1/2(4/1): 305329.

Grant W. 1983. The business lobby: political atti-

tudes and strategies. West European Politics

6(4): 163182.

Grant W. 1993. Business and Politics in Britain,

2nd edn Macmillan: Basingstoke.

Gray V, Lowery D. 1997. Reconceptualizing PAC

formation: its not a collective action problem,

and it may be an arms race. American Politics

Quarterly 25(3): 319346.




16/18

Greening DW, Gray B. 1994. Testing a model of

organisational response to social and political

issues. Academy of Management Journal 37(3):

467498.Griffin JJ. 2005. The empirical study of public

affairs. In The Handbook of Public Affairs,

Harris P, Fleisher CS (eds). Sage: London;

458480.

Grunig JE, Grunig LA. 2001. Guidelines for forma-

tive and evaluative research in public affairs: a

report for the Department of Energy Office of

Science. Department of Communication, Univer-

sity of Maryland: College Park.

Hainsworth B, Meng M. 1988. How corporations

define issue management. Public Relations

Review 14(4): 1830.Harris P, Fleisher CS. 2005. The Handbook of

Public Affairs. Sage: London.

Harris P, Moss D. 2001a. Editorial: understanding

public affairs. Journal of Public Affairs 1(1): 6

8.

Harris P, Moss D. 2001b. Editorial: in search of

public affairs: a function in search of an identity.

Journal of Public Affairs 1(2): 102110.

Harris P, Moss D, Vetter N. 1999. Machiavellis

legacy to public affairs: a modern tale of servants

and princes in UK organisations. Journal of

Communication Management 3(3): 201217.Hawkinson B. 2005. The internal environment of

public affairs: organization, process, and sys-

tems. In The Handbook of Public Affairs,

Harris P, Fleisher CS (eds). Sage: London;

7685.

Heath RL. 1988. Introduction: issues management:

developing corporate survival strategies. In

Strategic Issues Management: How Organiz-

ations Influence and Respond to Public Inter-

ests and Policies, Heath RL (ed). Jossey-Bass: San

Francisco; 143.

Heath RL. 2002. Issues management: its past, pre-sent and future. Journal of Public Affairs 2(4):

209214.

Hersch P, McDougall G. 2000. Determinants of

automobile PAC contributions to House incum-

bents: own versus rival effects. Public Choice

104(3/4): 329343.

Heugens PPMAR. 2005. Issues management: core

understandings and scholarly development. In

The Handbook of Public Affairs, Harris P,

Fleisher CS (eds). Sage: London; 481500.

Hillman AJ. 2002. Public affairs, issue management

and political strategy: methodological issues

that count a different view. Journal of Public

Affairs 1/2(4/1): 356361.Hillman AJ. 2003. Determinants of political strat-

egies in US multinationals. Business & Society

42(4): 455484.

Hillman AJ, Hitt M. 1999. Corporate political

strategy formulation: a model of approach,

participation and strategy decisions. Academy

of Management Review 24(4): 825842.

Hillman A, Keim G. 1995. International variation in

the business-government interface: institutional

and organizational considerations. Academy of

Management Review 20(1): 193214.

Hoewing RL. 1996. The state of public affairs: aprofession reinventing itself. In Practical Public

Affairs in an Era of Change: A Communications

Guide for Business, Government, and College,

Dennis LB (ed). University Press of America:

Lanham, MD; 3347.

Holcomb JM. 2005. Public affairs in North America.

In The Handbook of Public Affairs, Harris P,

Fleisher CS (eds). Sage: London; 3149.

Issue Management Council. 2005. Nine issue man-

agement best practice indicators. Available at:

http://www.issuemanagement.org/documents/

best_practices.htm. (accessed 8 January 2010).Jaques T. 2002. Towards a new terminology: opti-

mising the value of issue management. Journal

of Communication Management 7(2): 140

147.

Jaques T. 2004. Issue definition: the neglected

foundation of effective issue management. Jour-

nal of Public Affairs 4(2): 191200.

Jaques T. 2005. Systematic objective setting for

effective issue management. Journal of Public

Affairs 5(1): 3342.

Johnson JH, Meznar MB. 2005. Public affairs per-

ceptions and practices: a ten year (19932003)comparison. Journal of Public Affairs 5(1): 55

65.

Jones B, Chase H. 1979. Managing public policy

issues. Public Relations Review 5(2): 320.

Keim G. 2002. Managing business political activi-

ties in the USA: bridging between theory and

practice. Journal of Public Affairs 1/2(4/1):

362375.

Keim G. 2005. Managing business political advo-

cacy in the United States. In The Handbook of




17/18

Public Affairs, Harris P, Fleisher CS (eds). Sage:

London; 418433.

Keim G, Baysinger B. 1988. The efficacy of business

political activity: competitive considerations in aprincipal-agent context. Journal of Manage-

ment 14(2): 163180.

Keim GD, Zeithaml CP, Baysinger BD. 1984. New

directions for corporate political strategy. Sloan

Management Review 25(3): 5362.

Lerbinger O. 2006. Corporate Public Affairs:

Interacting with Interest Groups, Media, and

Government. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates:

Mahwah, NJ.

Lord M. 2000. Corporate political strategy and

legislative decision making: the impact of cor-

porate legislative influence activities. Business &Society 39(1): 7693.

Lowery D. 2007. Why do organized interests lobby?

A multi-goal, multi-context theory of lobbying.

Polity 39(1): 2954.

Luo Y. 2001. Toward a cooperative view of MNC-

host government relations: building blocks

and performance implications. Journal of Inter-

national Business Studies 32(3): 401420.

Mack CS. 1997. Business, Politics, and the Practice

of Government Relations. Quorum Books: West-

port.

Mahon JF, McGowan RA. 1996. Industry as aPlayer in the Political and Social Arena: Defin-

ing the Competitive Environment. Quorum

Books: Westport, CT.

Mahon JF, Heugens PPMAR, Lamertz K. 2004. Social

networks and non-market strategy. Journal of

Public Affairs 4(2): 170189.

Marcus AA, Irion MS. 1987. The continued growth

of the corporate public affairs function. The

Academy of Management Executive 1(3):

247250.

Marx TG. 1986. Integrating public affairs and strategic

planning. California Management Review24(1): 141147.

Marx TG. 1990. Strategic planning for public affairs.

Long Range Planning 23(1): 916.

McGrath C. 2007. Framing lobbying messages:

defining and communicating political issues per-

suasively. Journal of Public Affairs 7(3): 269

280.

McGuire EP. 1982. Public affairs: its function. In

The Public Affairs Handbook, Nagelschmidt JS

(ed). Amacom: New York; 3037.

Meng M. 1992. Early identification aids issues man-

agement.Public Relations Journal48(3): 2223.

Meznar M. 2002. The theoretical foundations of

public affairs and political strategy: where dowe go from here? Journal of Public Affairs

1/2(4/1): 330335.

Meznar MB, Nigh D. 1995. Buffer or bridge?

Environmental and organizational determinants

of public affairs activities in American firms.

Academy of Management Journal 38(4): 975

996.

Mitchell N, Hansen W, Jepsen E. 1997. The deter-

minants of domestic and foreign corporate

political activity. Journal of Politics 59(4):

10961113.

Moore RH. 1982. The evolution of public affairs. InThe Public Affairs Handbook, Nagelschmidt JS


Morris JP. 1997. Legitimate Lobbying. PMS Publi-

cations: London.

Oberman WD. 2008. A conceptual look at the

strategic resource dynamics of public affairs.

Journal of Public Affairs 8(4): 249260.

Oliver GR, Donnelly PJ. 2007. Effective use of a

strategic issue management system (SIMS): com-

bining tools and approach. Journal of Public

Affairs 7(4): 399406.

Palese M, Crane TY. 2002. Building an integratedissue management process as a source of sustain-

able competitive advantage. Journal of Public

Affairs 2(4): 284292.

Pedler R. 2002. Introduction: changes in the lobby-

ing arena: real-life cases. In European Union

Lobbying: Changes in the Arena, Pedler R

(ed). Palgrave: Basingstoke; 110.

Post JE. 1978. Corporate Behavior and Social

Change. Reston Publishing: Reston, VA.

Post J. 1982. Public affairs: its role. In The Public

Affairs Handbook, Nagelschmidt JS (ed). Ama-

com: New York; 2330.Post JE, Kelley PC. 1988. Lessons from the learning

curve: the past, present, and future of issues

management. In Strategic Issues Management:

How Organizations Influence and Respond to

Public Interests and Policies, Heath RL (ed).

Jossey-Bass: San Francisco; 345365.

Post JE, Murray EA, Dickie RB, Mahon JF. 1982. The

public affairs function in American corporations:

development and relations with corporate plan-

ning. Long Range Planning 15(2): 1221.




18/18

Post JE, Murray EA, Dickie RB, Mahon JF. 1983.

Managing public affairs: the public affairs func-

tion. California Management Review 26(1):

135150.Public Affairs Asia. 2009. The PA Industry in 2009.

Public Affairs Asia: Hong Kong.

Richards DC. 2003. Corporate public affairs:

necessary cost or value-added asset? Journal of

Public Affairs 3(1): 3951.

Sawatsky J. 1987. The Insiders: Government,

Business, and the Lobbyists. McClelland and

Stewart: Toronto.

Sawaya RN, Arrington CB. 1988. Linking corporate

planning with strategic issues. In Strategic Issues

Management: How Organizations Influence

and Respond to Public Interests and Policies,Heath RL (ed). Jossey-Bass: San Francisco; 7386.

Schuler D. 1996. Corporate political strategy and

foreign competition: the case of the steel indus-

try. Academy of Management Journal 39(3):

720737.

Schuler DA. 2002. Public affairs, issues manage-

ment and political strategy: methodological

approaches that count. Journal of Public Affairs

1/2(4/1): 336355.

Schuler DA, Rehbein K, Cramer RD. 2002. Pursuing

strategic advantage through political means: a

multivariate approach. Academy of Manage-ment Journal 45(4): 659672.

Shaffer B. 1995. Firm-level responses to government

regulation: theoretical and research approaches.

Journal of Management 21(3): 495514.

Shaffer B, Hillman AJ. 2000. The development of

business-government strategies by diversified firms.

Strategic Management Journal 21(2): 175190.

Showalter A, Fleisher CS. 2005. The tools and

techniques of public affairs. In The Handbook

of Public Affairs, Harris P, Fleisher CS (eds).

Sage: London; 109122.

Stanbury WT. 1988. Business-Government Relationsin Canada. Nelson: Scarborough.

Steckmest FW. 1982. Corporate performance. In

The Public Affairs Handbook, Nagelschmidt JS


SustainAbility and GPC. 2000. Politics and Persua-

sion: Corporate Influence on Sustainable Devel-

opment Policy. SustainAbility and GPC: London.

Taminiau Y, Wilts A. 2006. Corporate lobbying in

Europe, managing knowledge and information

strategies. Journal of Public Affairs 6(2): 122

130.Thomson S, John S. 2007. Public Affairs in Prac-

tice: A Practical Guide to Lobbying. Kogan Page:

London.

Tian Z, Deng X. 2007. The determinants of corpor-

ate political strategy in Chinese transition. Jour-


Tian Z, Fan S. 2008. The public issue life cycle and

corporate political actions in Chinas transitional

environment: a case of real estate industry. Jour-


Titley S. 2003. How political and social change will

transform the EU public affairs industry. Journalof Public Affairs 3(1): 8389.

Toth EL. 1986. Broadening research in public

affairs. Public Relations Review 12(2): 2736.

van Schendelen R. 2010. More Machiavelli in

Brussels: The Art of Lobbying the EU, 3rd edn

Amsterdam University Press: Amsterdam.

Wartick SL, Heugens PPMAR. 2003. Future direc-

tions for issues management. Corporate Repu-

tation Review 6(1): 718.

Watkins M, Edwards M, Thakrar U. 2001. Winning

the Influence Game: What Every Business Lea-

der Should Know About Government. JohnWiley: New York.

Wilson IH. 1982. Environmental scanning and

strategic planning. In Management Policy and

Strategy, 2nd edn Steiner GA, Miner JB, Gray ER

(eds). Macmillan: New York; 299303.

Wilson GK. 1985. Business and Politics: A Com-

parative Introduction. Macmillan: Basingstoke.

Windsor D. 2002. Public affairs, issues manage-

ment, and political strategy: opportunities,

obstacles, and caveats. Journal of Public Affairs

1/2(4/1): 382415.

Windsor D. 2005. Theories and theoretical rootsof public affairs. In The Handbook of Public

Affairs, Harris P, Fleisher CS (eds). Sage:

London; 401417.

Wittenberg E, Wittenberg E. 1989. How to Win in

Washington: Very Practical Advice About Lob-

bying, the Grassroots and the Media. Basil Black-

well: Cambridge.



Documents

EvolingroleofPA,McGrath