Essay Rewrite

‘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 organization, with the same objective of maintaining or improving an organization’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 Jacques 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 is the process that suggests “the pattern of news coverage influences public perception of what are the important issues of the day.” This helps influence people into thinking about certain issues more than others and helps create publicity for the organization involved. A perfect contemporary case study to illustrate that issues management is both spin and a genuine long-term commitment to stakeholders, would be that of the McDonald’s Animal Welfare Program. The Issue

McDonald’s cares about the treatment of animals. Hence, they continuously take a leading role in improving conditions and operations at their supplier’s facilities. Although McDonald’s does not own, raise or transport animals, they do recognize that they have a responsibility, as a purchaser of food products, to work with their suppliers to ensure good animal handling practices. McDonald’s takes animal welfare very seriously because it is an integral part of McDonald’s commitment to quality. The key objectives of their issue management program were to “provide leadership and innovation in order to create an industry-changing impact, and to provide transferability to others in the industry” . In this spirit, McDonald’s implemented innovative animal welfare quality program that included a comprehensive and tough objective audit system for good animal handling practices which are based on animal behavior science, an advisory Animal Welfare Council made up of leading academic, industry and animal protection experts and a groundbreaking set of new animal welfare practices for laying hens that provide 50% more housing space and eliminates the practice of restricting food for productivity gains. McDonald’s goal is to audit all their beef, pork and poultry suppliers every year so as to ensure the maintenance of humane standards in treating these animals. McDonald’s engaged a broad cross-functional team approach in addressing animal welfare leadership. Firstly, it established a leadership team comprising either directors or officers from the various departments within the organization, such as Supply Chain Management, Public and Community Affairs, Communication, Legal and Customer Satisfaction, just to name a few. The Vice President of Public and Community Affairs took charge of the team. Secondly, they ensured that the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman were directly involved, by setting the overall direction that McDonald’s provide leadership on animal welfare. Lastly, they created a supplier team with their direct meat suppliers to take on this program, to get educated on the issue, and to develop program in partnership with McDonald’s. By getting the whole organization and various meat suppliers involved, McDonald’s was able to get views and suggestions from a wide-range of people when developing the issue management program. This meant that the issue was viewed at all angles possible. The program allowed McDonald’s to suitably balance the external stakeholder’s viewpoints. These groups included: animal rights organizations; animal protection groups; suppliers and their trade organizations; the 30 million customers McDonald’s serves daily in the United States of America alone; investors; animal scientists and other academics in the animal science arena; and, of course, the media. This, in part, is spin. In their eyes, McDonald’s, through this program, is a socially committed organization that genuinely cares about the issue of animal welfare. They will associate McDonald’s with the issue and think of McDonald’s as a caring and considerate organization that cares about how animals are treated. This works out to McDonald’s advantage, as indirectly, more people are likely to patronize their restaurants due to the goodwill that McDonald’s has made. The animal welfare program is also an evident manifestation of McDonald’s ongoing commitment to social responsibility leadership. . The treatment of animals in an inhumane way also devalues the quality of McDonald’s food. If McDonald’s does not audit its suppliers, it would work to their disadvantage as well. Since McDonald’s believes in the management of issues in the emergence stage rather than the crisis stage, the animal welfare program was able to ensure that less money was spent, as it was strategically addressed in the early stages before it escalated into crisis mode. On the contrary, the program can also show that McDonald’s is genuinely concerned about the issue of animal welfare. For one, the most comprehensive part of the animal welfare program is the auditing all of its meat facilities to ensure that the animals are humanely treated. In addition, the program does not make a direct contribution to McDonald’s profitability. It also allows McDonald’s, as a major fast-food outlet, to give back to the community. Moreover, the program is in line with McDonald’s vision to be a “socially responsible leader in the communities where (they) do business”.

Conclusion

Using the above example, issues management can be both “spin” and a “genuine long-term commitment” to its stakeholders. McDonald’s pioneered the animal welfare program to portray them as an organization that cares about the standards and the quality of food served at their restaurants. Also, they care about the well-being of the animals that are served at the restaurants. In evaluating McDonald’s issue management program, Dr. Temple Grandin from the Department of Animal Science, Colorado University noted that there was a “pre-McDonald’s and post-McDonald’s era. When (she) began working with (the company) on implementing animal welfare audits, there was huge, huge change. It was massive tipping point where the whole culture of the meat industry changed.” This is successful issue management, starting something that makes others do the same. By being the first to do it, you also manage to win your organization a good impression. Issue management is that one area of public relations that is both spin and a genuine long-term commitment to the organization’s stakeholders. It serves to allow the organization’s publics and stakeholders see the organization in favorable light, which in turn improves the relationship the organization has with its publics and stakeholders and to allow the organization to show their publics that they truly care about certain issues.

Bibliography

1.Animal Welfare Group. http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/values/purchasing/animalwelfare.html (accessed March 20, 2008). 2.Charles, Ed. "Come in Spinners." The Australian, September 27, 2001. 3.Chase Award Entry, McDonald's. 2001. http://www.issuemanagement.org/documents/entry.mcdonalds.html (accessed March 20, 2008). 4.Chris Galloway, Kwamena Kwansah-Aidoo. Public Relations Issues and Crisis Management. Thomson Social Science Press, 2005. 5.Issues Management Council. 2008. http://www.issuemanagement.org/ (accessed March 20, 2008). 6.Jaques, Tony. "Issue Management: Why does it have to be an ethical challenge?" 7.John A Ledingham, Stephen D Brunig. Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations. http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=FbuDNwgkYgAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA95&dq=issues+management+spin&ots=vVMzsPkYEE&sig=7XA7s_36WSi-OC9e_x5BG_TTXwE#PPR7,M1 (accessed March 20, 2008). 8.Miller, Kate. "Issues Management: The Link Between Organisation Reality and Public Perception." Public Relations Quarterly, 1999: 5. 9.Ogilvy PR. 2008.