Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Socially responsible behaviour or ‘a way business is conducted?

The idea that social responsibility is good for public relations (PR) and therefore good for business is not a new one (see Golden 1968 for example). Bernays defined PR as ‘the practice of social responsibility’ (Grunig and Hunt 1984 in Clark 2000: 368), and more recently Clark (2000: 368) has suggested that PR and CSR have ‘similar objectives; both disciplines are seeking to enhance the quality of the relationship of an organization among key stakeholder groups. Both disciplines recognize that to do so makes good business sense.’ It follows that if PR is simply a tool used by corporations to manipulate public opinion and perceptions (see Beder 1999; Miller and Dinan 2000; and Stauber and Rampton 2001 for examples), then CSR may be nothing more than ‘faux altruism’ (Hastings and Liberman 2009: 74) at the expense of the public. This paper examines the conflict between insider and external discourses in the pharmaceutical industry based on keynote presentations to an audience of industry insiders at a public relations and communications summit. By way of participant observation and case studies provided by drug companies, the study attempts to show how managers and lobbyists communicate with corporate colleagues; use several communication strategies to engage the public in health issues; and devise policies apparently exemplifying socially responsible management. Three case studies were identified to supplement observational and participatory notes. The first is based on a presentation by a company representative outlining the value of CSR in the company’s business and corporate strategy, and illustrating how audiences are engaged with CSR messages. By increasing societal focus on neglected diseases through CSR campaigns, the company was able to gain policy support in pricing and regulation; ‘avoid the loss of public trust and goodwill’; and ‘develop new capabilities through partnerships.’ The second case study considers the core values and political strategies of a major European pharmaceutical lobby group. The analysis focuses on the organisation’s devising of communication strategies to impact on policymakers and influential stakeholders, irrespective of implications for public health: ‘The untruth we all have to play to is that the patient is at the centre of healthcare’ (anon, 2009). Lobbyists encourage the industry to accept that its ‘traditional’ influences are no longer ‘effective’ and it needs to change its strategies to ensure continued success. The third case study explores ‘Public Relations in the Transforming European Pharma Market.’ It brings together several examples of PR strategies and ‘reputational networks’ that pharmaceutical companies use to share knowledge and build customer trust. For example, it stresses the importance of engaging with patient advocacy groups as they play an increasingly important role in healthcare systems. Internal discourses reveal the industry’s communication strategy as engaged in the formation of a pseudo-scientific 'Malthusian catastrophe' to justify an agenda that is contradictory to the external message conveyed to patients. CSR is advocated as an essential business strategy which - if used in conjunction with other communication strategies such as public awareness campaigns; collaborations with patient advocacy groups; and affiliations with lobby groups that create both clinical and political messages appealing to policymakers - will lead to corporate successes. This study raises the question of whether these policies are ethically and honestly communicated to the public, or can be inherently deceptive. It also raises questions about the purpose and value of CSR and whether or not we can trust companies to act responsibly. The empirical data provides evidence supporting a model which brings together several, interactive stakeholders collaborating during scientific communication processes. Policies are implemented with the cooperation of other ‘players’ in the ‘pharma-sphere’, and these stakeholders help shape and define the messages disseminated to the public. In this way, they consciously and unconsciously facilitate Big Pharma’s pursuit for profit. For some of these entities claiming to act in the public interest, colluding with an industry primarily responsible to its shareholders jars with their semblance of benevolence. For others, devising strategies to assist these companies’ quest for commercial gain is used as a tool to attract more clients. This concept is described as ‘Pharmaffiliation’ and if used effectively by management teams, can create a veneer of socially responsible management that may not necessarily be in the public interest.