By Daniel Nyberg & John Murray
In an increasingly mediatized society, controlling the message in any public debate is key. Whether about climate change, COVID-19, or any other topic, facts about the matter appear less important than what the public believes to be the facts. Corporations and politicians act on the media message, and not on the fact or what the public need to know. Resourceful corporations can then provide the public with a message to believe in.
Sometimes it is even easier and cheaper for corporations to convince the public than it is to convince politicians. Convincing the public is done via different forms of mass media, while convincing the politicians is normally done behind closed doors – the quiet politics of lobbying. For researchers, it is notoriously hard to gain access to how corporations conduct lobbying and convince politicians of policies that, at times, go against the welfare of the people. However, every now and then, a spat between a government and key industries breaks out. When it is played out in mass media, it provides good insights into how corporations sway politicians.
In a recently published study, we investigate how the Australian mining industry convinced the Australian government to drop a proposed tax on the mining industry’s super-profits (that is, an additional company tax after the subtraction of a tax-free allowance). For accomplishing this, the industry managed to convince the government that the public was against the tax. However, there was limited evidence for this in polling or surveys. Yet, the industry convinced the politicians to believe that the public was convinced that the tax was bad for Australia. The belief is more important than the facts.
In analysing this public dispute between the mining industry and the government, we were interested in how the industry engaged as a legitimate political actor in arguing against a tax on their super-profits. Not just their profits; their super-profits.
Following the announcement from the government that they would introduce the new tax, the mining industry started a massive political marketing campaign against the proposed tax. The industry spent AUS $22 million (roughly €13 million or US$14 million) over eight weeks in 2010 on newspaper, radio, and TV marketing to convince the public that the tax was bad for them. This may sound like a lot of money, but the Financial Review calculated at the time that the industry saved AUS $100 billion (US$65 billion) over 10 years by avoiding the tax. Quite a return on investment.
The political campaign portrayed the mining industry as corporate citizens who always want the best for Australia and pay for “schools, hospitals and roads”. The message to the government, via mass media, was clear: if you “weaken mining, you weaken the country”.
The mining industry also portrayed themselves as the people. The marketing material was fronted by “average workers” – normal people – stating the great benefits all Australians get from the mining industry and that the proposed tax “was the greatest mistake the government has made”.
We term this kind of Orwellian doublespeak as corporate citizenspeak: the industry simultaneously speak as corporate citizens and for the citizen of the country. This conflation was enough to convince the government that Australian citizens were against the tax.
In the current turbulent times, with corporate bailouts and tax reliefs on the agenda, it is important to remember that corporations are not people or countries. Distribution of goods or benefits is not always through corporations. Even if this is what they want us to believe. Thus, it might not be most beneficial to bail out airlines and oil giants following the consequences of COVID-19. Especially, considering the urgent actions on climate change. The public’s understanding of facts is generally better than we are told, no matter what the corporations want us to believe.
Reference:
Nyberg, D., & Murray, J. 2020. Corporate Politics in the Public Sphere: Corporate Citizenspeak in a Mass Media Policy Contest. Business & Society, 59(4). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0007650317746176