tified their mistakes. Eager to do their best for ‘our common future’, they claim to be listen to their critics. Thus ‘dialogues’
with companies or industry organisations are frequently portrayed as the way ahead for citizen groups seeking corporate
accountability, rather than ‘confrontational’ strategies such as boycotts. What are the dangers and limits of doing so?
An answer requires exploring the ways in which calls for ‘dialogue’ of ‘cooperation’ have masked attempts to manipulate
public debates; to silence or neutralise critics; and to create an image of socially-concerned business. Knowledge of cor-
porate PR strategies may help activists and concerned citizens to recognise manipulative strategies and distinguish them
from industry behaviour that is truly indicative of change, and thus be in a better position to counter such strategies.

To be in a better position to resist corporate attempts to manipulate public debate and engineer consent, corporate ac-
countability activists need to learn how better to distinguish between marketing -selling a product- and corporate relations
- selling industry views (although manipulation is key to both kinds of activities). 'PR literacy’ can be increased by read-
ing PR textbooks (in particular, glossaries and sections on issues management and sponsorship) and investigative work on
corporate PR strategies. Spaces for democratic decision-making can be recovered in various ways:

Trying to limit opportunities for industry to gather information on activist plans. For instance, activists should ask journal-
ists and others interviewing them about their funding sources and request to see copies of their publications before giving
interviews. If they do enter into discussions with industry, they should try to avoid giving away strategic information about
their financial and human resources and action plans; they should however, loudly and clearly voice their concerns about
what they regard as the public issue.

UNVEILING HIDDEN PR PRACTICES

Action groups could set up public data banks on persons involved in ‘two-step-communication’ (the use of third parties)
“front organisations’ and on corporate-instituted ‘grass root organisations’. They could try to expose publicly the most in-
fluential or consciously-manipulative persons or organisations through their own publications and, if possible, through
other media. They could institute an annual competition for the best ‘corporate camouflage’ of the year (similar to existing
awards for the ‘top polluter, for instance). Legislation requiring politicians, government officials and health professionals
receiving industry funds to declare what they are doing so it could increase transparency in public debates. Given PR
practitioners’ vital role in of engineering consent towards anti-social business practices, action groups could attempt to
expose PR practitioners’ violations of the various voluntary codes of conduct instituted by major professional PR associa-
tions such as the Public Relations Society of America or the International Public Relation Association.

RESISTING SUPPRESSION OF PUBLIC ISSUES

The culture of industry secrecy, mechanisms of censorship and silencing need to be seriously addressed. Health Action
International, for example, is currently co-organising a campaign for public access to information underlying decisions
giving market approval for new medicinal drugs in Europe. New coalitions are needed to work for national Freedom of
Information Acts, and against structural censorship in the media. Groups should do all they can to expose and resist in-
dustry attempts to silence critics.

TRYING NOT TO BE USED TO ENHANCE THE IMAGE OF AN INDUSTRY

To prevent, or at least limit, being used to enhance a corporate image, professional associations and action groups should
continue discussing all these issues among themselves and establish clear policies on funding. There is a need to explore
the long-term structural consequences of NGO's and social and research institutions replacing dwindling public funds with
industry sponsorships, which they are under pressure to do. Organisations with a high public standing, such as UN agen-
cies and church organisations, should be particularly careful not to let themselves be used for image transfer or to en-
hance the legitimacy of a criticised company.

RESISTING CORPORATE ATTEMPTS TO MANIPULATE PUBLIC DEBATE
Ideally, this encompasses a dual strategy: publicly exposing attempts to silence, delay, divert or fudge, on the other hand: