CorpComms Magazine

When the Jack Abramoff scandal hit the US headlines a few years back it served as a powerful reminder that sleaze is still very much a part of the political world. Images of the shamed Washington lobbyist in his black trilby and Al Capone suit personified the sometimes dubious relationship between lobbyists, politicians and think tanks.

 Abramoff eventually pleaded guilty to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials and was sentenced to almost six years in prison. He was also forced to pay restitution in excess of $21 mn (£10.4 mn).

In the UK, questions are now being asked about whether the same type of scandal could happen here. A recent research project commissioned by Hill & Knowlton raises concerns that the independence of UK think tanks could be jeopardised by opaque funding methods and an increasingly US style of campaigning.

'Think tanks are no longer seen exclusively - or even predominantly - as an academic tool,' the report states. 'Instead, we are told how think tanks are 'now a standard lobbying tool ' and that the best ones have become 'ruthlessly commercial' as a result.'

Some see this commercialism as a worrying development in the UK, where think tanks wield significant influence. Interviews with MPs included in the study reveal that 30 percent believe think tanks had influenced their views on at least one major policy issue in the last six months.

'What was evident was the view that commercial sponsorship of think tank research undermines credibility,' comments Andrew Hawkins, head of ComRes, the organisation that conducted the research. 'The view from the public affairs practitioners was, Why would I recommend my client to fund this bit of research in the first place if it isn't going to support that client's case?'

Powers of perception

 Hawkins thinks there is a fundamental battle being fought between how think tanks want to be viewed and how they are actually perceived. 'Irrespective of the funding model, there is a clear tension between the rational imperative of the consultant needed by the research to support the objectives of its client, and the think tank's need to remain objective in the research it produces,' he comments.

Further evidence of this is provided by the report. Nearly nine in 10 (86 percent) in-house public affairs practitioners polled believe think tanks' most important function is to provide suppor ting evidence for the policies the practitioners have already developed.

But not everyone agrees that providing support for corporate policy agendas is the most important role of the think tank.

'I think there was a mistaken logic with some of the report's findings,' says Anne Rossiter, director of the Social Market Foundation and former director of public affairs consultancy Fishburn Hedges. 'The report said corporate communications professionals see think tanks as vehicles to get their message across, which seems to imply that's what they believe think tanks are for. But that's not the case. We don't see ourselves as a tool for lobbyists.'

Financial pressures

It wasn't just public affairs practitioners who were polled, however. One MP told researchers: 'I know think tanks need to make enough money to survive and bow to the corporate push to some extent but they have to learn that there's a risk they will end up selling their reputation.'

And he was not alone in this view: 62 percent of the MPs surveyed believe think tanks' reliance on corporate sponsorship undermines the independence of their proposals.

But do all think tanks rely on corporate sponsor ship for their funding? 'One of the challenges is that the term 'think tank' covers a range of organisations from the very scholarly to the more campaigning, and the funding arrangements appear to differ at many points along that spectrum,' explains Hawkins. 'The think tank community is a patchwork of entities, some politically neutral, some not, some with t ransparent funding structures, and some without.'

'We don't do sponsors' reports like some think tanks,' points out Helen Rainbow, a research officer for Reform, an independent non-party think tank. 'Some think tanks conduct research when a particular company or corporate organisation provides money for a certain report. It could have the name of the company on the report; things like that can damage the credibility of the research.'

Like a lot of UK think tanks, however, Reform has a system in place whereby financial donors cannot fund certain pieces of research specifically. 'Our corporate sponsorship programme means companies can donate only to the organisation as a whole,' Rainbow explains.

Reform openly discloses that it gets funding from three main sources: individual donors, corporate partnership schemes that involve the hosting of events, and charitable trusts.

'Some organisations have a business arm that does private research for corporates, but that would be a separate entity and none of the findings would be published publicly or promoted in the same way a think tank's core research would be,' notes Rossiter.

Public affairs

Rossiter also denies that think tanks are being induced to write research at the whim of public affairs consultants. 'I've never seen any research where I have thought, That's not justified,' she says. 'We are mainly funded by sponsorship, some from corporates and some from other charities. We decide what we want to research but we seek sponsors that are interested in supporting that work.'

Not all think tanks are as forthcoming with information, and even think tanks that are widely perceived to have credible funding strategies in place are not always upfront about them. 'We are a registered charity and so we are not obliged to talk about our funding strategies,' responds a spokesperson from Policy Exchange.

This caginess about sponsorship seems to be the most significant threat to think tank credibility, however. 'Additional transparency and clarity over funding would definitely be helpful,' suggests Roger Sharp, director of public affairs at O2 and a former special adviser to the Department of Trade and Industry.

And herein lies the stumbling block for many think tanks: the fact that many of them are charities means there isn't a culture of openness around funding because there has never needed to be.

The perception that UK think tanks are becoming more American in nature is based on the view that they are becoming 'more politically aligned, much more directly linked to political parties and more campaigning,' says Rod Cartwright, director of public affairs at Hill & Knowlton.

share me: del.icio.us | digg | reddit | Tweet