Quick summary of a slide from a presentation I gave last week here in DC that seemed to enlighten folks in the room.
Public affairs (Brussels) = Government relations (Washington D.C.)
Public affairs (Washington D.C.) = Communications (Brussels)
Here’s to helping us all speak the same language.
James
An interesting piece in this morning’s Washington Post about business schizophrenia when it comes to asking for regulation that does not harm the economy in these troubled times. Much of which resonates with experiences the other side of the Pond.
It strikes me that Europe and American companies share the same short term pressures. The pressure on numbers and share price lead to pretty short CEO life spans.
In comparing Brussels and D.C. the difference may be the nature of our legislative system, which would appear in the case of the former to be at least a little more conducive to decisions that have an eye on the longer term.
In Brussels consensus rather than conflict is the modus operandi. While every piece of legislation proposed by the Commission may not be perfect, advocates tend to base arguments on the basis of ensuring that legislation is effective, proportionate and provides the kind of regulatory certainty that the Post argues for. You’re less likely to hear business groups asking for it to be withdrawn completely. Equally our politicians are freed from the chains of public opinion through less frequent elections and scant media coverage.
O.K. Brussels’ consensus based decision-making may often equate to imperfect outcomes, and needless to say imperfect democracy, but perhaps it is also more likely to allow for planning for the long term.
James
The Public Affairs Council here in D.C. have an interesting little webinar coming up entitled “Building a Global Public Affairs Function, from Scratch“. It made me reflect on a conversation I was having the other night with a regular dinner companion who prior to a recent move to D.C. worked both in a representation of a large multinational and in a prominent industry association in Brussels. (Yes, after our kids have been put to bed we have a riot of a time in our house).
Our conversation revolved around the following three criteria for success:
1. Embeddedness
Broadly described this is the importance that the company gives to the public affairs function. How far does the public affairs function get a seat at the top table within the company? Do the views of the public affairs function inform the strategic choices the company makes, or does it simply get to clear up the mess when they have not been? I am guessing, and perhaps the Public Affairs Council has the answer here, that the more regulated an industry you are the more likely your company is to have ‘embedded’ public affairs into what it does. To a large extent this is going to depend on the leadership’s ability to recognize that the external environment is mightily important. How embedded you are also will dictate how far you can access the vital organizational insights and resources needed to advocate successfully.
2. Audience centric, tactic neutral
This is the extent to which you have the full range of tools in your toolbox to communicate with policymakers. I’m a big believer that we need to be integrators as a profession. We need to recognise that in order to achieve our objectives circumstances may require us to use a mix of communications channels, from meeting policymakers face-to-face, to conditioning the environment through online media buys or media relations. How far we are able to use a screwdriver when we need one, rather than our trusty hammer, is likely to be a function of the marketplace, our own abilities/experiences and the internal structure within the company.
Issues of access may mean that direct contact with policymakers is not permitted or only undertaken by certain actors (i.e. registered lobbyists). Our own understanding of all the tools at our disposal may mean we prefer to pick up the hammer even if a screwdriver would be a better option. Internally media relations may be the responsibility of someone who cares less about government as an audience and more about customers. To be successful, at the very least you need to be able to understand the tools at your disposal, have the ability to use them, or failing that get others to use them for you.
My reflection on the difference between Brussels and D.C. in this regard is that the relatively larger resources at organizations’ disposal mean that there is far more room for specialists who focus on specific tactics. Whether this leads to more effective public affairs is perhaps the subject for another post. I am reserving judgement.
3. Glocal
Whether you are in the financial services sector or work for an oil and gas major, I think you would be hard pressed to find a company of any decent size that doesn’t see its issues played out across both sides of the Atlantic. As such, the public affairs function needs in my view to have a global nature. Here I am not talking about a command and control approach. Public affairs needs local implementation, suited to the marketplace. However, a global approach should allow for the function to spot and manage issues as they develop and pass between borders, leverage best practice in dealing with them and mitigate against risks from inconsistent messages. For example, I recall the case of a company arguing for an exemption from the EU ETS while the very same company was publicly declaring its wholehearted support for a cap and trade system in the US. If I were a chemicals company faced with TSCA reform, I’d want to know about my European colleagues views on how REACH played out.
The three ideas above are clearly the starting point of a longer list, but nevertheless a start. Hopefully I’ll have a chance to listen to the webinar to gain further inspiration and insights. Hopefully you will do too.
James
So. A start has been made. This is my new blog. As opposed to the old one. I have finally plucked up the courage to sit down at my shining new iMac. I have posted. Before the comments come in (you know who you are) I have to admit to not being very good at managing expectations, or indeed working out how much is on my plate. It turns out that moving one’s life and that of one’s family is not quite the hop, skip and jump one may hope it to be. Things just take longer than one expects. Those things tend to come in multiples of multiples.
So to this blog. The idea is that I am here in Washington D.C. for the next 24 months and I want to both keep a record of my experiences over that period as well as share them with others. If you’re reading this, my first post, at present you’re counted in others. If you’re interested in coming back, I intend to write about the difference between the US and Europe in terms of public affairs, politics and policy and of course observe life in another country in general. All of this with due regard to my employer, Fleishman-Hillard and its client base.
Before leaving Brussels, I picked the theme for the blog, bought the domain name and set everything up. Alas, all I missed was time and of course content. What the hell am I going to write about in this first post I thought to myself? It was then that I saw those three circles in the theme supplied by the good folks at WordPress. It reminded me of the three circles diagram I created post a global public affairs meeting. You can see it here.
My thinking in Brussels was that to become more effective in achieving our goals we need to expand beyond an automatic reflex of going meeting people directly (i.e. government relations) and harness the full range of tactics available to communicate to our audience, policymakers (i.e. public affairs). Now I’m in D.C. What I hope to learn is whether the D.C. system, with its lobbying registration rules and increased public connection with decision-makers is something we can learn from in Brussels? Or perhaps, God forbid, D.C. can learn something from Brussels?
Let’s see.
James
Public Affairs Posts from FH people
