How to define a public policy position

Read more on our GR Blog: www.medium.com/gr-blog

Aligning internally on policy options is too often regarded a one-off exercise. It is not — it happens all the time and is a core process of GR you should manage diligently (cf. our article on productization). Surprisingly, we found that many GR organizations lack such a standardized policy alignment process. Three aspects are key:

• A policy decision is seldomly a binary decision between “yes” and “no”. Rather, a specific policy proposal could sit anywhere on a continuum between “actively oppose” and “actively support and become a leader” — options like “passive support”, “do nothing” or “lean forward sit in between.
• Each policy position would come with specific risks and opportunities. Make sure you think broadly — including brand, financial, market access issues.
• These policy options on the continuum will very likely come with different investment needs. This is the place to insert some realism in your internal debate: Becoming a “thought leader” on a specific policy is usually a very expensive, long-term project. We found that the label is applied too often — who doesn’t want to be a thought leader? — without seriously backing it up with the investments required.

We would estimate that most policy topics do not affect your company in its core interests, so your strategic response will more often than not be in the range of “passive opposition” to “passive support” (cf. graph 1).

To describe each response option, we recommend a simple table as shown in graph 2.

Finally, make sure you highlight what is in scope and what is not. Policy topics often overlap. Take the issue on gun control — let’s assume your company is considering to take position on this super-hot topic. Are you addressing “ghost guns” which never have been registered? Or are you also considering a position on registered guns? Do you want to include issues like guns in schools? Such scoping is important to avoid confusion or “policy position creep”.