OPINION:  PR takes the rap in James Hardie case but more needs to be known By Grant Common Editor Published October 2004 Grant has 30 years direct experience in public relations and communication in Australia and New Zealand - as well as directing and managing programs in the UK and USA. He has consulted to Governments, publicly listed companies, industry bodies, marketing organisations, multinationals and not-for-profit organisations. He is Managing Director of Sydney-based Network PR and principal of Comsult Communication Design, a consultancy specialising in the emerging management discipline that focuses on how organisations internally plan, structure and organise their communication. As a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors (having completed the Company Directors Diploma examination) he is also one of the few PR practitioners to have the perspective of the company director. The role of PR has taken a public hammering during the ‘trial’ of James Hardie the former asbestos maker. The PR results and the ‘PR plan’ (which almost every man and his dog has seen since it ‘fell off the back of a truck’) are certainly prima facie evidence of some apparent grave PR misjudgements. No one should try and dodge the fact that there were some real PR failures at James Hardie. But as anyone who has worked in a corporate environment such as this knows, seldom does one discipline - be it legal, finance or PR - get the upper hand and have its plan or approach adopted without change. Usually the emphasis is on collective decision-making and often by the time an end plan of action comes out it’s a mix of inputs from many.  As with the government of a country, what is discussed and decided in cabinet remains there and everyone is bound by the collective decision made. And often the person who ‘got rolled’ still has to go out and ‘sell’ what he/she doesn’t necessarily agree with. What we’ve seen on the PR front is an end plan to sell a strategy and the issuing of a statement that has been shown in hindsight to be untruthful. But before PR is indicted, a lot more questions need to be asked about the PR role in the whole process.  Was it the active proponent - and the key driver - of the whole scheme?  Or did it - as good PR should - take the devils advocate role only to be over-ruled?  Or was PR only ever used as a delivery mechanism to ‘sell’ the scheme to stakeholders? Before PR is found to have been guilty, questions need to be asked on two levels: First - strategic Was PR a key input in the original decision to split the company? Or was PR viewed as simply the means to communicate the decision to stakeholders? Did PR ever argue that the whole proposition had moral aspects to it? If so how strongly and with what voracity?  If there was a PR case against the deal was this over-ruled by finance and legal? In light of the above, was the PR plan put forward one which was done with reluctance because it had ‘lost the battle’ or was it one that was promoted as the way to sell the proposition? Second - tactical Was the decision to issue a statement regarding funding of the scheme driven by the Board/CEO and merely implemented by PR?  Or was it initiated by PR and promoted to the Board/CEO as the ‘thing to do’? What process was in place to ensure that the statement was technically correct and ‘signed off’ by the appropriate people with the technical knowledge to verify its accuracy? It is doubtful whether the full truth about the real extent of the PR failures - and the reasons for them - will ever be known. But that’s no different from the position of the CEO versus the Board - many will argue that the Board is equally as culpable as the CEO. But in today’s world, perception is reality. And it’s often easier to shoot the messenger than try and delve into it any more.  Let’s move onto the next corporate scandal! Grant Common Editor

PR Influences Australian Public Relations Newsletter. Article: PR Case Study: PR takes the rap in James Hardie case . Information Content: Opinion & Comment