870275

research-article2019
PRI0010.1177/2046147X19870275Public Relations InquiryBrunner and Smallwood

Full Length Conceptual Essay

Public Relations Inquiry

1­–20
Prioritizing public interest in © The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
public relations: Public sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/2046147X19870275
https://doi.org/10.1177/2046147X19870275

interest relations journals.sagepub.com/home/pri

Brigitta R. Brunner
Auburn University, USA

Amber M. K. Smallwood
University of West Georgia, USA

Abstract
Though early public relations leaders set up serving the public interest as an
unquestionable role for public relations, contemporary public relations practice and
scholarship have focused on organizations’ goals and activities giving little attention
to the public interest. We put forth Public Interest Relations (PIR), which resituates
the public interest as central to the work in and scholarship of public relations. PIR
recognizes public relations practitioners have a civic duty to create spaces for dialogue;
encourage and listen to diverse viewpoints; offer honest analysis and synthesis toward
recommendations that advocate for the public interest; and act in the public interest,
while also advancing organizational goals. Because organizations may engage in PIR in
different ways, a three-category PIR continuum is offered. When PIR is practiced, we
propose trust will grow, community will be built, and goodwill will be fostered.

Keywords
Goodwill, public interest, public interest communications, public interest relations,
public relations, trust

Public relations has suffered from a poor reputation and image, in part, because many of
its earliest 20th century practitioners paid little attention to ethics or social responsibility
(Wright, 1979), and though some mid-20th century practices broadened to include

Corresponding author:
Amber M. K. Smallwood, Mass Communications, University of West Georgia, 1601 Maple St, Carrollton,
GA 30118, USA.
Email: amksmall@westga.edu
2 Public Relations Inquiry 00(0)

researching publics, this research was often for the purpose of manipulating behaviors
rather than serving a public interest (Grunig and Hunt, 1984). An early 21st century shift
to consider public relations primarily as relationship building and maintenance placed an
emphasis on ethical considerations and practices and reintroduced discussion of the
responsibilities of public relations to society; this resulted in a renewed interest in, and
examination of, the relationship between public relations and the public interest (Brunner,
2017a; Hiebert, 2015; Johnston, 2016, 2017; Ledingham and Bruning, 2000; Messina,
2007). The trend toward considerations of the responsibility of public relations to a
greater social good coincides with an era of uncertainty, offering new challenges and
opportunities for public relations (McKie and Heath, 2016).
While much contemporary public relations practice and scholarship focus on organi-
zations’ goals and activities, we argue that the public interest must be resituated as a
central tenet in public relations. Resituating and prioritizing the public interest neces-
sarily change how we do and understand public relations. The concept of public interest
is not neat and tidy but still holds potential for public relations (Johnston, 2017). Brunner
(2017a) states ‘public relations does have, and always has had, a connection to the pub-
lic interest’ (p.47). While there will be varying degrees and levels of support for such a
reorientation, including whether public interest must always take the highest priority or
simply be one of many top priorities, we believe this new approach, which we call
Public Interest Relations (PIR), will create spaces for dialogue, encourage diverse opin-
ions and perspectives, offer honest analysis and synthesis, and act in the public interest.
When these essential elements of PIR occur as a result of prioritizing the public interest,
we believe the end result will be an increase in trust among organizations and constitu-
ents. This increased trust will then have a ripple effect, thereby building community and
goodwill. This manuscript works to move the public relations discipline closer to a
theory of PIR.

Need for and aims of public interest relations

Serving the public interest is not a new concept for public relations practitioners and
academics, however, working for the public interest can create challenges when indi-
vidual interests differ from common ones (Stoker and Stoker, 2012). Edward Bernays –
often referred to as the father of public relations (Taylor, 2008) – understood that public
relations would gain value in society when it allowed the public to evaluate the merits of
ideas and messages, thereby allowing for a free exchange of ideas, even those ideas tied
to individual profit (cited in Stoker and Stoker, 2012). PIR recognizes a disproportionate
focus of public relations practitioners is on achieving the outcomes of the organization
and public relations scholars on positioning organizations as the unit of observation in
research. Building on existing public relations theory and practices of corporate social
responsibility (Campbell, 2007; Ihlen et al., 2011; Jones, 1980; Pompper, 2015), corpo-
rate social advocacy (Dodd and Supa, 2014), Organic Theory (Vujnovic and Kruckeberg,
2012), and the public interest (Johnston, 2017), PIR also expands on this foundation,
offering a new approach to public relations practice and scholarship.
Traditional corporate social responsibility practices consider the public interest but
remain largely organization-centric (Park and Dodd, 2017); the public interest is not
Brunner and Smallwood 3

positioned as a central organizational value. Newer corporate social responsibility (CSR)

practices, including cocreated ideas and programs, work to better integrate organiza-
tional and societal efforts to achieve the goals of each (Kim and Slotegraaf, 2016); some
of these practices focus more on improving society than benefiting the organization
(Andersen and Johansen, 2016). CSR strategies of an organization aim to simultaneously
improve society and an organization’s image, reputation, or profit, but they do not neces-
sarily situate the public interest as a priority in an organization’s ongoing public relations
work. Corporate social advocacy (CSA) practices augment an organization’s CSR pro-
grams (Dodd, 2018; Dodd and Supa, 2014) through organizations taking stances on
social issues outside their CSR activities. CSA – in its spanning the practices of issues
management and CSR – can be socially and financially impactful (Dodd and Supa,
2014), but even CSA still does not situate the public interest as a central value of the
organization and, thus, the public interest is not prioritized in public relations.
Shifting focus to incorporate and prioritize the public interest rests PIR upon the
groundwork laid by Vujnovic and Kruckeberg’s (2012) Organic Theory, which posits
that public relations practitioners/scholars should examine and consider societal issues,
even those not directly affecting their organizations or clients. Vujnovic and Kruckeberg
(2019) state the organizational focus of public relations fails to consider issues beyond
corporate walls. Rather than focusing on the organization, public relations should instead
make society central to its work (Kruckeberg and Starck, 1988; Vujnovic and Kruckeberg,
2019). Through prioritizing the public interest, public relations ‘demonstrates its moral
integrity, professionalism, and commitment to civic responsibility’ (Brunner, 2017b: 7).
Other than some attention in the 1950s, the public interest has not been at the crux of
public relations (Johnston, 2017). Individual scholars have addressed the public interest,
however, there has not been a developed body of work or a sustained interest in the con-
cept (Johnston, 2017). While Johnston (2017) suggests this lack of attention to public
interest may be due to how polarizing the concept is, Halff and Gregory (2015) point to
other factors. They state academics’ focus on organizations rather than society; postmod-
ern and critical scholars who decree it is impossible for public relations to work on behalf
of society; and the fact that few academics have used their research to connect public
relations to society are the reasons this gap exists in the literature. In addition, there is no
single definition of public interest agreed upon by scholars or practitioners (see Jackson,
1997 for overview of social sciences literature addressing public interest definitions).
Little research has been done to determine how public relations practitioners can
serve the public interest (Stoker and Stoker, 2012). Halff and Gregory (2015) note, ‘The
notion of public relations contributing to the fabric of society is heavily contested in the
public sphere and under researched by the academy’ (p.719). They support this sugges-
tion by stating much public discussion about public relations focuses only on its ability
to harm society. For example, critics often suggest all public relations is evil and works
against the public good (see Stauber and Rampton, 1995), and Halff and Gregory (2015)
state the academy has done little to put an end to such thoughts. Despite these depictions
of public relations, we should remember ‘public relations in itself is not good or bad, but
can be used for good or bad purposes’ (Ihlen and Verhoeven, 2012: 162).
Many of today’s organizational leaders are more connected to publics beyond cus-
tomers, employees, and stockholders in ways they were not in years past (Gelles, 2017),
4 Public Relations Inquiry 00(0)

and they recognize their position also carries a responsibility to the public interest.
Positioning themselves and their organizations in alignment with the public interest can
improve organizations’ reputations, increase employee morale, lead to better recruit-
ment, and even improve sales (Gelles, 2017). The authors of this article believe placing
the public interest as central to the practice and scholarship of public relations necessar-
ily shifts attention from the organization as the primary focus to understanding the public
interest and the relationship between the public interest and organizational aims. We
offer this article as a first phase to addressing some of the concerns raised by Johnston
(2017) about the lack of exploration and scholarship at the intersection of the public
interest and public relations. We suggest PIR as an integrated approach across all areas
of public relations rather than a strategy such as CSR and CSA. Ideally, and in order to
be most effective, we propose PIR should become an organizational value that encour-
ages proactive practices, strategies and tactics, rather than adopting PIR exclusively as a
reactive approach. Toward developing a full theory of PIR, we present a three-category
continuum, where the practice of responsible PIR falls between two extremes.

Public interest relations continuum

We argue it is time for public relations to embrace the necessary mind-set and actions
to not only serve but also to prioritize the public interest in decision-making, commu-
nicating, and undertaking activities to work for societal good. One step necessary to
theory development is the examination of practice (Parkhouse and Ulrich, 1979). After
all, as Mintzberg (1973) states, if we do not know what is being practiced, how can we
predict what will happen in practice? We propose a three-category continuum which
shows PIR practiced between two extremes – organizations with no regard for the
public interest and organizations with regard for only the public interest. PIR practices
are explored through a review of relevant literature and illustrated with contemporary
examples.

Category 1: Working toward organizational goals exclusively

Organizations in the first position of the PIR continuum have no regard for the public
interest and are focused primarily, or exclusively, on the organization’s aims. Several
hundreds of workers employed by Wayfair, an online seller of home furnishings and
decor, walked out of their jobs in June 2019. These workers participated in this example
of civil disobedience to protest the company’s sale of furniture to detention centers hold-
ing migrant adults and children hoping to immigrate to the United States (McLaughlin,
2019). The detention centers have become a lightning rod for criticism due to the condi-
tions under which people, especially children, are being held. In addition, 547 Wayfair
employees signed a petition requesting that the organization stops all business with
migrant detention centers and camps and that any profits from previous sales to such
centers and camps be donated to a nonprofit organization providing legal services to
immigrants (McLaughlin, 2019). The petition also asked Wayfair leaders to establish a
code of ethics that would allow employees to act based on their values (Alesci et al.,
2019). Leaders of Wayfair denied the demands of the petition, and in a letter obtained by
Brunner and Smallwood 5

CNN, stated that the organization would continue selling products to such organizations
(Alesci et al., 2019).

As a retailer, it is standard practice to fulfill orders for all customers and we believe it is our
business to sell to any customer who is acting within the laws of countries within which we
operate .  .  . This does not indicate support for the opinions or actions of the groups or individuals
who purchase from us. (As quoted in Alesci et al., 2019, para. 11)

Later, Wayfair leaders did make a US$100,000 donation to the American Red Cross
(ACR) (McLaughlin, 2019).
The action and words of Wayfair leadership do not reflect PIR practices; rather their
communication and action seem to be exclusively tied to organizational goals rather than
discovering or considering the public interest, despite the generous donation to the ACR.
Wayfair leaders took a strategy of staying the course and tactics such as not exploring the
demands of employees in order to work toward organizational goals.

Category 2: Enacting public interest relations practice(s) as organizational

value(s)
To practice PIR, public relations practitioners must be open to learning about the public
interest and work to enact PIR with appropriate strategies and tactics. For PIR to be use-
ful and make an impact upon public relations practice, practitioners need to bridge the
‘knowing-doing gap’ (Pfeffer and Sutton, 2000: x), because ‘knowledge is only valuable
when it is enacted’ (Swart, 2011: 320). By practicing PIR, practitioners are demonstrat-
ing how this orientation can create value. Value in this example is defined as ‘outcomes
which are mutually appreciated and which have an ability to create future opportunities’
(Swart, 2011: 324). In other words, when an organization works in the public interest, the
outcomes of this work will benefit not only the organization but also its publics.
In addition, PIR will also lead to future collaborations. In this context, the public rela-
tions practitioner would be acting as a change agent. Choi and Choi (2009) state that
being a change agent ‘involves promoting and encouraging desirable internal changes
for organizations’ public relations, even taking personal risk’ (p.295). Practitioners can
become change agents when they practice PIR because they are balancing the interests
of both their organizations and their publics. While it may be risky, in some instances, the
practitioner may make decisions and take actions that elevate the public interest over
organizational ones because the practitioner believes these actions are warranted. As
Holtzhausen (2000) suggests, taking risks in order to endorse change which betters soci-
ety and organizations should be something practitioners do. In fact, some practitioners
might even become activists questioning the judgment of top leaders (Holtzhausen and
Voto, 2002) when practicing PIR.
By acting in the public interest, organizations may need to become vulnerable, accept
past failings, or take strategic risks for a longer-term investment in aligning the organiza-
tion with the public interest. Doing so may lead to becoming a sector or social change
agent, earning trust, building community, and fostering goodwill for the organization.
The purpose of the next three practices are to offer explanation of three PIR actions that
6 Public Relations Inquiry 00(0)

connect scholarship to practice with case studies to help illustrate how organizations may
choose to engage in PIR. Organizations that value the public interest and adopt PIR prac-
tices are better positioned to proactively communicate and connect with stakeholders.
Some organizations may engage in PIR and move linearly or cyclically through PIR
practices – creating spaces for dialogue, encouraging and listening to diverse perspec-
tives, and offering honest analysis and recommendations; others may not. An organiza-
tion may not have been proactive in creating space for dialogue, but when diverse
perspectives are shared with the organization, it listens and acts accordingly. Though not
ideal, utilizing PIR practices reactively to address feedback, organizations can still be
seen as practicing PIR. By taking action that reflects any one or a combination of the next
three practices, while also considering organizational goals, organizations would be con-
sidered as engaging in PIR.

PIR practice: Creating spaces for dialogue.  Yang and Taylor (2013) argue that relationships
and dialogue are necessary for public relations to support the democratic elements of
society. Even Bernays in his later years wrote, ‘Public relations is the practice of social
responsibility’ (as quoted in Clark, 2000), thus speaking directly to public relations’ val-
ues and morals in respect to society. Heath et al. (2013) state ‘Inherent in its name is the
challenge of the public and the need for relationships that advance collective rather than
merely private interests’ (p.278). This statement helps place the challenge of practicing
public relations while serving the public interest in perspective.
When public relations helps publics to trust one another through the free flow of
information, it serves the public interest, community, and society through dialogue
(Heath, 2000). ‘Public discourse gives other members of society the opportunity to hear,
read, assess, respond to, and denounce the quality of positions that are advocated’
(Heath, 2000: 74,). Therefore, public relations can be used to create spaces for dialogue
about topics of interest to society. Taylor et al. (2019) note that ‘[w]hat makes dialogue
unique is its capacity to serve both organizational and public interests’ (p.86). Dialogic
communication is not simply two-way communication; rather it establishes an other-
orientation through five necessary features – mutuality, propinquity, empathy, risk, and
commitment (Kent and Taylor, 2002) – and by building trust between an organization
and its stakeholders.
Through the creation of spaces for dialogue, public relations practitioners work to
develop long-term, productive engagement between an organization and its stakeholders
by achieving authentic and genuine relationships through mutual understanding (Taylor
et al., 2019). This strategy of engagement can be achieved through multiple tactics
including hosting community meetings or town halls to build relationships with stake-
holders; attending such events hosted by community groups; and engaging elected,
appointed, or emergent community and issue leaders in conversation. Organizations can
be proactive about creating spaces for dialogue or may find their tactics being imple-
mented in reaction to expressed concerns.
For example, in January 2019, French President Emmanuel Macron launched a
national dialogue in response to the Yellow Vest protest movement against an added fuel
tax. Tactics employed by Macron’s ‘Great National Debate’ include becoming vulner-
able by ‘having to ask [the public] for help’ (Timsit, 2019, para. 1) and inviting citizens
Brunner and Smallwood 7

to answer a set of questions via an online survey or in person at their mayor’s office as
part of discussion groups (Berry, 2019). While the online responses would not consti-
tute dialogic communication according to scholars, the discussions with mayors can be
considered a first step toward dialogue by creating the spaces necessary for this type of
authentic communication that builds and depends upon establishing trust through
engagement.
An example of an organization that was proactive in creating spaces for dialogue is
Proctor & Gamble (P&G), a consumer goods company. P&G recently teamed with
Saturday Morning, a creative collective, to develop ideas to combat racial bias and injus-
tice (Diaz, 2019).
Although P&G has been working to start conversations about racial bias among con-
sumers, a cofounder of Saturday Morning shared that he did not believe P&G’s work had
done enough (Diaz, 2019). In particular, he suggested that P&G should do more to foster
dialogue about African-American men, family life, and stereotyping (Diaz, 2019). P&G
continued its dialogue with Saturday Morning and soon partnered to create a video, ‘The
Look’, which educates about unconscious bias (Diaz, 2019). This example demonstrates
how an organization’s leaders were open to dialogue, even dialogue that was critical of
their attempts to create conversations about social injustice. Rather than shut down the
critique, the P&G leadership engaged with, and subsequently partnered with, members
of Saturday Morning to create an even more powerful message meant to invite more
dialogue from and among other publics.

PIR practice: Seeking and encouraging diverse voices and perspectives.  Public relations in the
public interest requires people to take part in larger conversations affecting society; prac-
titioners need to ensure diverse perspectives are listened to and encouraged to make
contributions to the urgent, ethical, social, and political questions that cross boundaries
(Moglen et al., 2017).
Macnamara (2018) differentiates hearing from listening. Listening requires attention,
processing, consideration, and response ‘as well as recognition and respect, openness
and receptivity’ (p.11). While bringing about discussion and inquiry related to the public
interest and society is an ideal social role of public relations (Grunig and White, 1992),
it is also one with currency. Millennials and members of Generation Z want to be listened
to, they want organizations to be transparent, and they are more likely to support organi-
zations that take their responsibility to society seriously (Alsop, 2008; Deloitte, 2015;
Hartman and McCambridge, 2011; Myers and Sadaghiani, 2010). Organizations that
want to remain relevant will need to find ways to encourage internal and external discus-
sions that prioritize the public interest.
Public relations in the public interest needs to encourage all people to take part in the
larger conversations affecting society. After all, ‘democracy is based on the idea that
everybody is entitled to raise their voice and to try to persuade each other’ (Toledano,
2016). When the public is allowed to debate issues, arguments will inevitably occur.
Practitioners should not only allow such debate, but they should also encourage it. Pyle
et al. (2018) succinctly state, a democratic society needs debate and disagreement, add-
ing, ‘It is through respectful dialogue that we challenge each other to grow and be
stronger’ (p.222). Similarly, Moglen et al. (2017) remind us arguments don’t have to be
8 Public Relations Inquiry 00(0)

about conflict, taking sides, picking opponents, overpowering the opposition, or even
winning. Instead, these engaged discussions should be viewed as a transformation of
ideas that are dependent upon negotiation, mediation, and conflict resolution (Moglen
et al., 2017). In fact, Holtzhausen (2000) proposes ‘It should be the responsibility of the
public relations function to create opportunities for dissent, for opening up debate with-
out forcing consensus, to create possibilities for change’ (p.150). Most scholars and prac-
titioners believe public relations is essential to a democratic society (Grunig, 2000).
Therefore, the public interest is served in part when public relations is available to
society.
Strategically, encouraging and listening to diverse – including dissenting – viewpoints
can aid organizations’ innovative thinking and decision-making (De Dreu and West,
2001). By being open to new perspectives and criticism, organizations encourage robust
exchanges of ideas that can offer competitive advantages for organizations. In addition,
by encouraging diverse perspectives, PIR works toward requisite variety. Weick (1979)
suggested that in order for organizations to work through complex issues, they needed
requisite variety. Requisite variety is a theoretical concept that states for an organization
to be effective, it must have as much diversity within as exists outside it (Weick, 1979).
By having requisite variety, organizational leaders have greater understanding of the
concerns, needs, and interests of constituents who are different from themselves (Dozier
et al., 1995; Grunig et al., 1992).
Tactics that organizations can use include actively seeking diverse community and
stakeholder perspectives; social media engagement and listening; issues monitoring,
advisory councils, and web analytics. The onus of this responsibility does not fall only
upon organizations; members of the community must also actively participate in dia-
logue, debate, and viewpoint sharing.
Nike, an athletic shoe and apparel manufacturer, planned to introduce a new shoe, the
Air Max 1 Quick Strike Fourth of July, near the US independence holiday, the Fourth of
July. The shoe was designed with an historic flag, the Betsy Ross flag, which had stars
representing the 13 colonies from which the United States began. However, Nike spokes-
man, Colin Kaepernick,1 brought forth issues with the historic flag design, explaining how
it was offensive to African Americans due to its use during the US’s slavery period and also
because that flag is used by some white nationalist groups (Koplowitz, 2019; McLean,
2019). Nike leadership decided to pull the shoe from the market based on this feedback
(McLean, 2019). In May 2019, Nike also canceled the Air Force 1 Puerto Rico sneaker
after an indigenous group in Panama, the Guna, took issue with its design (Deng, 2019;
McLean, 2019). Although the shoe was meant to celebrate Puerto Rican heritage, it used a
traditional and sacred Panamanian design, the Mola (Deng, 2019). The Guna Yala com-
munity had not been consulted about the use of the Mola on the sneakers (Deng, 2019). In
addition, people of Panamanian descent are different than those of Puerto Rican descent.
These examples demonstrate an organization that listens to divergent views, even
when those views might affect the organization’s profits and even when those views
come from people outside the organization such as the Guna Yala community. By
addressing Kaepernick’s and the Guna peoples’ concerns, Nike has taken a strategy of
listening to divergent views and followed with the tactic of product removal. While these
Brunner and Smallwood 9

examples show that Nike was responsive and listened to diverse voices, Nike’s actions
were reactive rather than proactive. A more efficient and effective way to listen to diverse
views would be to be proactive and involve a diverse team in initial conversations to
avoid blunders, cultural insensitivity, and embarrassment.

PIR practice: Offering honest analysis and recommendations regarding the public interest. Many
scholars have deliberated not only what public interest is and how to apply it to situa-
tions, but they have also questioned its existence (see Cassinelli, 1958 and Cochran,
1974). Common complaints are the concept is too vague, too utopian, and too value-
laden (Johnston, 2017). Working for the public interest causes dilemmas for practitioners
when individual interests may differ from common ones (Stoker and Stoker, 2012).
Coombs and Holladay (2014) say it is impossible to expect practitioners to go against the
will of employers in order to do what is best for the public interest. The public relations
practitioner is often closer to the organization that employs or contracts him or her and
may consciously or unconsciously privilege that interest over the wider demands of soci-
ety (Fawkes, 2015). However, this situation should not excuse practitioners from cham-
pioning the public interest even if it cannot always be the top priority.
In order to prioritize public relations for the public interest, practitioners would need
to ask questions such as: Are we creating opportunities to engage in public issues?; Are
our actions responsive to the issues community members have identified as problems?;
and Do community members believe it when we say we want to help? (Mitchell, 2017).
Once questions such as these are considered, the practitioner can advise organizational
leaders on how to best serve the public interest while balancing organizational interests.
The public interest practitioner should serve as a reminder to others that in order to be
effective, public relations practitioners (corporate, governmental, nonprofit, and activist)
need to not only have the capacity to act but also the competence to have an influential
voice in what matters (Richards, 2017).
By offering honest analysis to an organization, public relations practitioners are
encouraging organizational leadership to pursue not only the organization’s short-term
goals but also its long-term mission and vision while working for the public good. Tactics
to achieve this strategy include empowering public relations at top decision-making lev-
els; conducting market and reputation research; and continued issues monitoring.
Rose Marcario, CEO of Patagonia, a clothing company that specializes in outdoor
wear, donated all US$10 million of the organization’s tax cut from the Trump administra-
tion’s new tax laws to environmental groups involved with issues such as saving Earth’s
air, water, and land (Gillespie, 2018). The new tax cuts reduced corporate taxes from 35
to 21 percent (Gillespie, 2018). Marcario stated ‘Instead of putting the money back into
our business, we’re responding by putting $10 million back into the planet. Our home
planet needs it more than we do’ (as quoted in Gillespie, 2018, para. 2). This example is
not the first one of Patagonia putting the public interest before organizational goals.
Patagonia has donated 1 percent of its sales toward preservation and restoration of the
environment since 1985 (Gillespie, 2018). The leaders of Patagonia seem to be taking a
strategy of taking responsibility. As Marcario states in her November 28, 2018 post to the
Patagonia blog, The Cleanest Line,
10 Public Relations Inquiry 00(0)

Being a responsible company means paying your taxes in proportion to your success and
supporting your state and federal governments, which in turn contribute to the health and well-
being of civil society. Taxes fund our important services, our first responders and our democratic
institutions. Taxes protect the most vulnerable in our society, our public lands and other life-
giving resources. (Marcario, 2018, para 3)

Through prioritizing the public interest along with organizational needs through tactics
such as donating a percentage of sales and money generated through tax cuts, Patagonia
is practicing PIR.

Category 3: Working toward the public interest exclusively

While we propose that positioning the public interest as central to public relations work
and working to discover and prioritize it in organizational decision-making, we also
recognize that organizations have various goals they must meet in order to become and
remain profitable or solvent, effective, and sustainable. An organization that fails to bal-
ance or align meeting its organizational goals with the public interest is ultimately acting
irresponsibly and without corrective action, will fail. Nonprofit organizations are espe-
cially susceptible to this dilemma because ‘unlike for-profit profit maximizers, nonprof-
its focus on other outcomes’ (Hager and Searing, 2014: 68), namely by focusing on the
charitable work accomplished by the organization and not on its financial viability.
Hager and Searing (2014) refer to this as starvation and warn that starvation is a common
reason why nonprofit organizations fail.
In March 2015, one of New York City’s largest human services providers Federation
Employment and Guidance Service (FEGS), a nonprofit organization with an annual
budget of US$250 million, announced it would be closing and filing for bankruptcy
(Human Services Council, n.d.). The closure left 1900 employees without jobs, 120,000
clients unserved, and creditors holding US$47 million in debts (Human Services Council,
n.d.). A report issued by New York-based group the Human Services Council concluded
several factors led to the FEGS failure. Among these are that human services nonprofits
deliver programming that is underfunded – on average, for each dollar spent on program-
ming, the organization earns only 80 cents, thus programming is only funded at 80 per-
cent of its true cost. The report also notes the devotion of employees to the nonprofit’s
mission despite underfunding. ‘Underfunding leads to salaries so low that many non-
profit employees depend on safety net programs, such as food stamps and Medicaid’
(Human Services Council, n.d.: 3). The report notes that while the FEGS closure stunned
many due to the organization’s size and 80 years of service to the area, the fate of this
organization is shared by many nonprofits, especially those focused on human services.
Hull House, founded to help meet the needs of Chicago’s immigrant population,
offers another example of starvation (Hager and Searing, 2014) due to underfunding that
was accepted as standard operations by employees. Hull House unexpectedly closed in
January 2012 after more than 120 years of service. When the question of how the organi-
zation’s board of directors, which includes many prominent business leaders, allowed the
financial situation of the organization to reach the point of failure, the board chairman
‘said that financial reports prepared by management had sugar-coated the situation and
Brunner and Smallwood 11

that because staff members had maintained a positive attitude, the board failed to under-
stand the magnitude of the financial problems until they were too large to solve’ (Moyers,
2012, para. 9). A former executive of the nonprofit countered, ‘the reason the staff mem-
bers like me were staying positive in attitude was that we are very used to social-service
agencies always being on the brink of destruction’ (as quoted in Moyers, 2012, para. 10).
Audits of FEGS and Hull House revealed warning signs of failing organizations, yet
the charitable outcomes of the organization – those that focus primarily on the public
interest – were prioritized above other organizational needs. Organizations that exclu-
sively or disproportionately focus on meeting the needs of the public interest with little
or no regard for other organizational goals, including profitability or financial solvency,
are not considered to be practicing PIR. Ultimately, these organizations can even harm
the public interest due to the voids left once they close their doors.

Outcomes of PIR: Earning trust, building community, and fostering

goodwill
The anticipated outcomes of practicing PIR are earning trust, building community,
and fostering goodwill across stakeholder groups. Trust is widely accepted as a criti-
cal part of public relationships and can only be built with time (Davidson and
Kapelianis, 1996; Dumoulin and Boyd, 1997; Grunig and Huang, 2000; Hon and
Grunig, 1999; Ledingham and Bruning, 2000). Trust has underlying dimensions of
integrity, dependability, and competence (Hon and Grunig, 1999). When public rela-
tions is practiced with integrity, it means interactions are fair. Dependability means
the public relations practitioner can be relied upon to do what he or she says he or she
will do, and a competent practitioner is one who has the ability and resources to fol-
low through on what he or she says he or she will do. Vangen and Huxham (2003)
argue that trust is a cyclical process based in interdependence and risk. Each partner
in the relationship will have expectations for what will come about from their interac-
tion and collaborations and each time those expectations are met or surpassed, more
trust is built. In addition, authenticity and trust are built through two-way communi-
cation and disclosure that is transparent (Kruckeberg and Vujnovic, 2014). Therefore,
PIR brings attention to the need to build trust through its focus upon creating spaces
for dialogue that is transparent.
Similarly, goodwill, which can be defined as perceived caring (McCroskey and Teven,
1999), can be seen as an outcome of PIR because diverse opinions and perspectives will
be encouraged and supported through this perspective thereby fostering care. Goodwill
shows a commitment to constituents and helps organizations to serve the public interest
(Aiello and Sloan, 2013). Hallahan (2004) states community building brings people and
organizations together to attain common goals. Community is enhanced by the building
of trust and goodwill (Lowengard, 1989), which we posit PIR will do. When societies
have greater trust, there is more cooperation and participation, thereby building commu-
nity and a willingness to join dialogues and debate (Brunner, 2017a; Sommerfeldt, 2013),
which will lead to honest analysis, synthesis and recommendations. Therefore, we
believe PIR, will help to build the cycle of trust begetting goodwill, begetting commu-
nity, and so on as the process continues.
12 Public Relations Inquiry 00(0)

Arguments against and for public interest relations

Even when public relations claims to serve society and enhance democracy, not all pub-
lic relations activity lives up to that ideal (Fawkes, 2015). The conflict between doing
what is right by the organization or doing what is right by society is a legitimate and an
old dilemma. Practitioners are often torn between being advocates for their employers or
clients and their responsibilities to society and the public interest. Grunig (2000) sug-
gests collaboration should be at the core of public relations work and scholarship to bring
‘an essential element of collectivism into the commonly individualistic world view of
most Western organizations’ (p.25), whereas Tilson (1999) calls for a reorientation of
public relations professionals toward a ‘a community of conscience’ (p.72) in order to
build ‘civil, ethical and equitable’ (p.72) communities. Doing so not only benefits the
‘international public relations profession, but also the common good’ (Tilson and Alozie,
2004: 11). Public relations practitioners themselves would need to not only understand
and appreciate the value of PIR but also work to persuade leadership to invest in PIR as
an organizational value.
Brunner (2017b) notes that only by defining its values will public relations ‘find a
moral compass’ (p.5) to clarify its purpose and pursue the public interest. Similar to
Brunner (2017b), Kruckeberg (1996 [1995]), Tilson (1999), and Tilson and Alozie
(2004), we call upon practitioners and scholars to examine and determine their values
and beliefs as professionals and representatives of public relations. Taking this step is not
so much to elevate the discipline but more to define the values and beliefs of public rela-
tions (Kruckeberg, 2000). Only after having such important dialogues can practitioners
and academics truly work for the public interest. Public interest has grown and flourished
as a concept within other disciplines and professions (Johnston, 2017); to allow it to
flourish in public relations will require academics and practitioners to resituate the public
interest as central in their work.
Simply defining what is meant by the term ‘public interest’ and then understanding
how to identify the public interest have been, at best, difficult, and often overlooked
exercises (Bivins, 1993; Messina, 2007; Stoker and Stoker, 2012). Despite challenges
defining the public interest, Martinson (1995) implores public relations professionals not
to ignore it; rather he states practitioners should identify an abstract definition of public
interest and work toward more local operationalizations. Johnston (2017) echoes this
need in public relations scholarship: ‘the discipline would benefit from a clearer under-
standing of the concept, both theoretically and functionally’ (p.17). These calls for fur-
ther refinement of the definition of processes of public interest are important in the
discipline and practice of public relations and deserve further exploration.
Perhaps to better see the connection between public relations and the public interest,
one must go back to definitions. As Edwards (2011) states the way we define public rela-
tions is key to its development. Many definitions focus on public relations as it relates to
and is used within organizations – without mention of the public interest (e.g. Public
Relations Society of America). Dodd (2018) argues that with what appear to be recent
shifts in organizations’ role and power in the democratic process, the time is right to
‘revisit guiding public relations theories, move beyond theoretical puzzle solving, and
embrace new theories and concepts for scientific revolution’ (p.223).
Brunner and Smallwood 13

Edwards (2011) proposes public relations should be defined as ‘the flow of purposive
communication produced on behalf of individuals, formally constituted and informally
constituted groups, through their continuous transactions with other social entities’
(p.21). Edwards’ definition removes the focus from organizations and broadens public
relations to involve individuals, groups, and social entities. Through PIR, we go one step
further and state public relations should not only be defined with society in mind but also
with a strong and intentional inclusion of public relations’ responsibility to prioritize the
public interest. PIR relocates the public interest as a central tenet and a priority in public
relations work and scholarship.

Conclusion
We recognize PIR is an ideal that may not work or fit in every situation, culture, or soci-
ety. Therefore, we put it forth suggesting perhaps there is a continuum of PIR practice
with different strategies and tactics. Allowing for this continuum will not only recognize
the extremes but also the variations in between the poles (Edwards, 2011). While we
have worked to include diverse examples of application, further exploration – including
application and criticism of PIR – are necessary to determine its value in the discipline
and practice of public relations. As Ihlen and Verhoeven (2012) assert, we do not mean
for this approach to be the one and only one to define public relations; we instead pro-
pose it in the hopes that it begets more thought and discussion and as answer and counter
in an uncertain and untrusting time.
Since the purpose of this article is to demonstrate the viability of PIR practice within
a continuum for public relations, it serves as a starting point for researchers to establish
questions and testable hypotheses, which will allow a complete theory of PIR, with nec-
essary concepts, constructs and variables, to emerge. We believe such an inductive
approach to theory building is appropriate and will help researchers to develop appropri-
ate questions and hypotheses to build, test, and refine a theory of PIR in future research
endeavors (Parkhouse and Ulrich, 1979).
Some questions, which we believe need to be answered in future research, in order to
determine the worth of a theory of PIR, follow.

How are practitioners practicing PIR?

By use of qualitative methods, researchers could observe and discuss how practitioners
practice PIR. We proposed three ways practitioners may engage in PIR, but there are
likely others. This type of research would better inform our knowledge of PIR and its
practice from the practitioner point of view.

Does practicing PIR lead to outcomes of trust, community, and/or

goodwill?
The primary assumption of this manuscript is that engaging in PIR will benefit organiza-
tions through increased trust, community building, and fostering goodwill. This needs to
be tested. Furthermore, do specific practices within PIR correlate to higher levels of
14 Public Relations Inquiry 00(0)

trust, community, and goodwill? Do organizations that practice PIR proactively earn
higher levels of these outcomes than those that practice PIR reactively? Do the outcomes
vary between stakeholder groups? The relationship between the practices of PIR and the
proposed outcomes is unknown and needs further research.

Is PIR practical in all parts of the world?

We recognize that public relations is situated within social contexts and thus practices
and outcomes would be expected to vary across societies and culture. It would be proper
to test how PIR could be practiced in different parts of the world as well as whether the
expected outcomes are realized. This research would help determine if a theory of PIR is
appropriate worldwide or if there were differences for what and how PIR works depend-
ent upon culture.

How can curricula be built to place an emphasis on PIR?

In order for PIR to be an established part of the practice of public relations, future prac-
titioners must be knowledgeable of it and be able to put PIR to use in their work.
Therefore, research would need to be done to best determine how and when PIR should
be introduced into the current public relations curriculum.

How can PIR be measured and evaluated?

By developing a scale to measure PIR, researchers could measure the practice of public
interest in public relations. Researchers could also better flush out the continuum of PIR.
Furthermore, by developing evaluative criteria for PIR, researchers could better deter-
mine the impact of PIR on public relations practice and whether there are ideal levels or
practices of PIR for different types of organizations.
The authors of this article assert that ultimately, public relations must move away from
passively considering public concerns while prioritizing organizational interest to placing
the public interest as central in decision-making, communication, and action. Organizations
are increasingly responsible for more than just products, services, and profits; ‘they stand
up for our values on behalf of all stakeholders – including employees, customers, partners,
community and the planet’ (duBrowa, 2018, para. 7). Organizations that are prepared to
embrace this shift in expectations and responsibilities have the opportunity to position
themselves as trusted leaders within their industries and beyond. Public relations profes-
sionals must also recognize there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to the concept of the
public interest but rather it is a changing, malleable, and nebulous concept that deserves
immediate attention of practitioners and scholars (Johnston, 2017). We echo Johnston’s
(2017) call for a better understanding of the concept of the public interest and add that an
examination of how practitioners approach defining, discovering, and acting in the public
interest would also further both public relations practice and scholarship.
In 2018, PR Week encouraged Chief Communications Officers evolve into ‘Chief
Conscience Officers’ (duBrowa, 2018, para. 6), warning that our contemporary situation
is a ‘pivotal moment .  .  . [when] we can either risk being relegated to our prior spin-doctor
Brunner and Smallwood 15

status or use this moment to elevate our roles and the organizations we serve’ (duBrowa,
2018, para. 5). We propose a path toward elevating public relations and organizations – by
embracing PIR, public relations professionals position their organizations to emerge as
trusted leaders who build community and foster goodwill.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

ORCID iD
Amber M. K. Smallwood https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9064-7662

Note
1. Colin Kaepernick is a former National Football League player who became controversial for
his decision to protest police brutality by kneeling while the US national anthem was played
during football games.

References
Aiello S and Sloan J (2013) Goodwill. In: Heath RL (ed.) Encyclopedia of public relations (2nd
edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.399–401.
Alesci C, Meyersohn N and Trafecante K (2019) Wayfair donates $100,000 to the red cross after
employee backlash. CNN, 26 June Available at: https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/26/business/
wayfair-donation-migrant-facility/index.html (accessed 7 July 2019).
Alsop R (2008) The Trophy Kids Grow Up: How the Millennial Generation Is Shaking Up the
Workplace. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Andersen SE and Johansen TS (2016) Cause-related marketing 2.0: Connection, collaboration and
commitment. Journal of Marketing Communications 22(5): 524–543.
Berry A (2019) The great debate: Can ‘creating a dialogue’ make a real difference? Nonprofit
Quarterly, 18 January. Available at: https://nonprofitquarterly.org/the-great-debate-can-
creating-a-dialogue-make-a-real-difference (accessed 7 July 2019).
Bivins TH (1993) Public relations, professionalism, and the public interest. Journal of Business
Ethics 12: 117–126.
Brunner BR (2017a) Community, engagement, and democracy: Re-envisioning public relations
and public interest communications through civic professionalism. The Journal of Public
Interest Communications 1(1): 45. DOI: 10.32473/jpic.v1.i1.p45.
Brunner BR (2017b) The Moral Compass of Public Relations. New York: Routledge.
Campbell JL (2007) Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional
theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review 32(3): 946–967.
Cassinelli CW (1958) Some reflections on the concept of the public interest. Ethics 69(1): 48–61.
Choi J and Choi Y (2009) Behavioral dimensions of public relations leadership in organizations.
Journal of Communication Management 13(4): 292–309.
Clark CE (2000) Differences between public relations and corporate social responsibility: An
analysis. Public Relations Review 26: 363–380.
Cochran CE (1974) Political science and ‘the public interest’. The Journal of Politics 36(2):
327–355.
Coombs TW and Holladay SJ (2014) It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society (2nd edition).
Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
16 Public Relations Inquiry 00(0)

Davidson S and Kapelianis D (1996) Towards an organizational theory of advertising: Agency-

client relationships in South Africa. International Journal of Advertising 15: 48–60.
De Dreu CK and West MA (2001) Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of par-
ticipation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(6): 1191–1201.
Deloitte (2015) Mind the gaps: The Deloitte Millennial survey 2015. Available at: https://www2.
deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/About-Deloitte/gx-wef-2015-millen-
nial-survey-executivesummary.pdf (accessed 25 August 2018).
Deng V (2019) Nike pulls its ‘Puerto Rico’ Air Force 1 low sneaker amid controversy using
a Panama design. Footwear News, 22 May. Available at: https://footwearnews.com/2019/
focus/athletic-outdoor/nike-puerto-rico-air-force-1-sneakers-pulled-1202783886/ (accessed
16 July 2019).
Diaz A-C (2019) Film previewed in Cannes is the latest in the marketer’s diversity efforts.
Advertising Age, 26 June. Available at: https://adage.com/creativity/work/pg-goes-talk-look-
illustrate-unconscious-bias-plagues-black-men/2179996 (accessed 17 July 2019).
Dodd M (2018) Globalization, pluralization, and erosion: The impact of shifting societal expecta-
tions for advocacy and public good. The Journal of Public Interest Communications 2(2):
221–238.
Dodd MD and Supa DW (2014) Conceptualizing and measuring ‘corporate social advocacy’ com-
munication: Examining the impact on corporate financial performance. Public Relations
Journal 8(3): 2–23.
Dozier DM, Grunig LA and Grunig JE (1995) A Manager’s Guide to Excellence in Public Relations
and Communication Management. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
duBrowa C (2018) The new CCO: Chief conscience officer. PR Week, 18 March. Available at:
https://www.prweek.com/article/1459851/new-cco-chief-conscience-officer (accessed 7
April 2018).
Dumoulin C and Boyd K (1997) Building a meaningful relationship: A direct marketing love story.
Direct Marketing 60: 32–33.
Edwards L (2011) Defining the ‘object of public relations research: A new starting point. Public
Relations Inquiry 1: 7–30.
Fawkes J (2015) A Jungian conscience: Self-awareness for public relations practice. Public
Relations Review 41: 726–233.
Gelles D (2017) The moral voice of corporate America. New York Times, 19 August. Available
at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/19/business/moral-voice-ceos.html (accessed 15
November 2017).
Gillespie E (2018) Patagonia donates entire Trump tax cut to environmental groups. Fortune, 29
November. Available at: https://fortune.com/2018/11/29/patagonia-to-donate-entire-trump-
administration-corporate-tax-cut-to-environmental-groups-ceo-calls-tax-cut-irresponsible/
(accessed 7 July 2019).
Grunig JE (2000) Collectivism, collaboration, and societal corporatism as core professional values
in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research 12: 23–48.
Grunig JE and Huang YH (2000) From organizational effectiveness to relationship indicators:
antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies, and relationship outcomes. In:
Ledingham A and Bruning SD (eds) Relationship management: A relational approach to
public relations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 23–53.
Grunig JE and Hunt T (1984) Managing Public Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Grunig JE and White J (1992) The effect of worldviews on public relations theory and practice. In:
Grunig JE (ed.) Excellence in Public Relations and Communication management. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.31–64.
Brunner and Smallwood 17

Grunig LA, Grunig JE and Ehling WP (1992) What is an effective organization? In: Grunig JE (ed.)
Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, pp.65–90.
Hager MA and Searing EA (2014) 10 ways to kill your nonprofit. Nonprofit Quarterly 21(4):
66–72.
Halff G and Gregory A (2015) What is public relations to society? Toward an economically
informed understanding of public relations. Public Relations Review 41: 719–725.
Hallahan K (2004) ‘Community’ as a foundation for public relations theory and research.
Communication Yearbook 28: 233–279.
Hartman JL and McCambridge J (2011) Optimizing Millennials’ communication styles. Business
Communication Quarterly 74: 22–44.
Heath RL (2000) A rhetorical perspective on the values of public relations: Crossroads and path-
ways toward concurrence. Journal of Public Relations Research 12: 69–91.
Heath RL, Waymer D and Palenchar MJ (2013) Is the universe of democracy, rhetoric, and public
relations whole cloth or three separate galaxies? Public Relations Review 39: 271–279.
Hiebert R (2015) Introduction. Public Relations Review 41: 715–718.
Holtzhausen DR (2000) Postmodern values in public relations. Journal of Public Relations
Research 12: 93–114.
Holtzhausen DR and Voto R (2002) Resistance from the margins: The postmodern public relations
practitioner as organizational activist. Journal of Public Relations Research 14: 57–84.
Hon LC and Grunig JE (1999) Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Institute
for Public Relations. Available at: https://www.instituteforpr.org/wp-content/uploads/
Guidelines_Measuring_Relationships.pdf (accessed 7 April 2019).
Human Services Council (n.d.) New York nonprofits in the aftermath of FEGS: A call to action.
Available at: https://humanservicescouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/Initiatives/HSCCommission/
HSCCommissionReport.pdf (accessed 18 July 2019).
Ihlen O and Verhoeven P (2012) A public relations identity for the 2010s. Public Relations Inquiry
1: 159–176.
Ihlen O, Bartlett JL and May S (eds) (2011) The Handbook of Communication and Corporate
Social Responsibility. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons
Jackson CY (1997) The public interest rightly understood: An American perspective. Korean
Review of Public Administration 2(1): 97–124.
Johnston J (2016) Public Relations and the Public Interest. New York: Routledge.
Johnston J (2017) The public interest: A new way of thinking for public relations. Public Relations
Inquiry 6: 5–22.
Jones TM (1980) Corporate social responsibility revisited, redefined. California Management
Review 22(3): 59–67.
Kent ML and Taylor M (2002) Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public relations
review 28(1): 21–37.
Kim Y and Slotegraaf RJ (2016) Brand-embedded interaction: A dynamic and personalized inter-
action for co-creation. Marketing Letters 27(1): 183–193.
Koplowitz H (2019) Mo Brooks: Colin Kaepernick ‘ought to consider moving to another coun-
try’ if he hates America. Al.com, 5 July. Available at: https://www.al.com/news/2019/07
/mo-brooks-colin-kaepernick-ought-to-consider-moving-to-another-country-if-he-hates-
america.html (accessed 17 July 2019).
Kruckeberg D (1996 [1995]). The challenges for public relations in the era of globalization. Public
Relations Quarterly 40(4): 36–39.
Kruckeberg D (2000) The public relations practitioner’s role in practicing strategic ethics. Public
Relations Quarterly 45: 35–39.
18 Public Relations Inquiry 00(0)

Kruckeberg D and Starck K (1988) Public Relations and Community: A Reconstructed Theory.
New York: Praeger.
Kruckeberg D and Vujnovic M (2014) Transparency and its vulnerabilities: Trust must be
the public relations goal of governments, civil society organizations and corporations,
August. Available at: https://www.ipra.org/news/itle/transparency-and-its-vulnerabilities-
trust-must-be-the-public-relations-goal-of-governments-civil-society-organizations-and-
corporations/ (accessed 17 July 2019).
Ledingham JA and Bruning SD (2000) Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational
Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.
Lowengard M (1989) Community relations: New approaches to building consensus. Public
Relations Journal 45(10): 24–30.
McCroskey JC and Teven JJ (1999) Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measure-
ment. Communication Monographs 66(1): 90–91.
McKie D and Heath RL (2016) Public relations as a strategic intelligence for the 21st century:
Contexts, controversies, and challenges. Public Relations Review 42: 298–305.
McLaughlin T (2019). Wayfair workers, supporter protest furniture sale to U.S. immigrant camp
Reuters, 26 June. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-wayfair-
idUSKCN1TR27B
McLean R (2019) Nike featuring Betsy Ross flag canceled after backlash. CNN, 2 July. Available
at: https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/01/business/nike-air-max-1-quick-strike-fourth-of-july/
index.html (accessed 7 July 2019).
Macnamara J (2018) The Missing Public in Public Relations Theory: Extending Two Promising
Contemporary Theories (Unpublished Manuscript). Sydney, NSW, Australia: University of
Technology Sydney.
Marcario R (2018) Our urgent gift to the planet, 28 November. Available at: https://www.patago-
nia.com/blog/activism/our-urgent-gift-to-the-planet/ (accessed 17 July 2019).
Martinson DL (1995) Difficult as it is to define, ethical public relations practitioners must not
ignore the ‘public interest’. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 10: 210–223.
Messina A (2007) Public relations, the public interest and persuasion: An ethical approach. Journal
of Communication Management 11(1): 29–52.
Mintzberg H (1973) The Nature of Managerial Work. New York: Harper & Row.
Mitchell TD (2017) The next evolution of civic learning. Peer Review 19. Available at: https://
www.aacu.org/peerreview/2017/Fall/Mitchell (accessed 7 April 2018).
Moglen S, Keetley D and Crassons K (2017) Literature and social justice. Peer Review 19.
Available at: https://www.aacu.org/peerreview/2017/Fall/Lehigh (accessed 7 April 2018).
Moyers R (2012) Hull House collapse is a cautionary tale for boards and executives. The Chronicle
of Philanthropy. Available at: https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Hull-House-Collapse-
Is-a/190601 (accessed 18 July 2019).
Myers KK and Sadaghiani K (2010) Millennials in the workplace: A communication perspec-
tive on Millennials’ organizational relationships and performance. Journal of Business and
Psychology 25: 225–238.
Park YE and Dodd MD (2017) The historical development of corporate social responsibility as
a strategic function of public relations. In: Brunner BR (ed.) The Moral Compass of Public
Relations. New York: Routledge, pp.15–27.
Parkhouse BL and Ulrich DO (1979) Sport management as a potential cross-discipline: A par-
adigm for theoretical development, scientific inquiry, and professional application. Quest
31(2): 264–273.
Pfeffer J and Sutton R (2000) The Knowing-doing Gap: How Smart Companies Turn Knowledge
into Action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Brunner and Smallwood 19

Pompper D (2015) Corporate Social Responsibility, Sustainability and Public Relations:

Negotiating Multiple Complex Challenges. New York: Routledge.
Pyle AS, Linvill DL and Gennett PS (2018) From silence to condemnation: Institutional responses
to ‘travel ban’ Executive Order 13769. Public Relations Review 44: 214–223.
Richards CK (2017) A civic-rich framework for liberal education. Peer Review 19. Available at:
https://www.aacu.org/peerreview/2017/Fall/Richards (accessed 7 April 2018).
Sommerfeldt EJ (2013) The civility of social capital: Public relations in the public sphere, civil
society, and democracy. Public Relations Review 39(4): 280–289.
Stauber J and Rampton S (1995) Toxic Sludge Is Good for You! Lies, Damn Lies, and the Public
Relations Industry. Monroe, ME: Common Courage.
Stoker K and Stoker M (2012) The paradox of public interest: How serving individual superior
interests fulfill public relations’ obligation to the public interest. Journal of Mass Media
Ethics 27: 31–45.
Swart J (2011) That’s why it matters: How knowing creates value. Management Learning 42(3):
319–322.
Taylor M (2008) Bibliography issue. Public Relations Review 34: 421–492.
Taylor M, Kent M and Xiong Y (2019) Dialogue and organization – Public relationships. In:
Brunner BR (ed.) Public Relations Theory: Application and Understanding. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons, pp.79–96.
Tilson D and Alozie E (2004) Toward the Common Good. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Tilson DJ (1999) Against the common good: The commodification of Latin America. Media
Development 46: 69–74.
Timsit A (2019) In an open letter, Emmanuel Macron asks every French citizen to answer 20 big
questions. Quartz, 14 January. Available at: https://qz.com/1522564/macrons-open-letter-
asks-20-questions-about-yellow-vest-demands (accessed 9 July 2019).
Toledano M (2016) Advocating for reconciliation: Public relations, activism, advocacy and dia-
logue. Public Relations Inquiry 5: 277–294.
Vangen S and Huxham C (2003) Nurturing collaborative relations: Building trust in interorganiza-
tional collaboration. The Journal of Applied Behavior Science 39: 5–31.
Vujnovic M and Kruckeberg D (2012) Public relations and community: A reconstructed theory
revisited (once again). In: Proceedings of the 15th Annual International Public Relations
Research Conference, Miami, FL. March.
Vujnovic M and Kruckeberg D (2019) Community. In: Brunner BR (ed.) Public Relations Theory:
Application and Understanding. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, pp.141–157.
Weick KE (1979) The Social Psychology of Organizing (2nd edition). Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Wright DK (1979) Professionalism and social responsibility in public relations. Public Relations
Review 5: 20–33.
Yang A and Taylor M (2013) The relationship between the professionalism of public relations,
societal social capital and democracy: Evidence from a cross-national study. Public Relations
Review 39: 257–270.

Author biographies
Brigitta R. Brunner (PhD, University of Florida) is a professor at the Auburn University School of
Communication & Journalism. She has been on faculty at AU since 2002 teaching public relations
classes at the undergraduate and graduate levels. She is the editor of the Journal of Public Interest
Communications. Her research interests include civic engagement, civic professionalism, diver-
sity, and education. She has published four edited books, Cases in Public Relations: Translating
20 Public Relations Inquiry 00(0)

Ethics into Action (Oxford University Press, 2019), Public Relations Theory: Application and
Understanding (Wiley, 2019), The Moral Compass of Public Relations (Routledge, 2017), and
Creating Citizens: Liberal Arts, Civic Engagement, and the Land-Grant Tradition (University of
Alabama Press, 2016), and has numerous refereed journal articles.
Amber M. K. Smallwood (PhD, Indiana University–Bloomington) is a professor of Mass
Communications and interim dean of the College of Social Sciences at the University of West
Georgia. Her research interests include public media, public relations, higher education leadership,
and nonprofit management. She teaches courses in public relations and mass communications.