evolve24 has been tracking the health care debate to see how it is affecting the reputation of various stakeholders. The project is generating lots of interesting numbers, but the first thing that jumps out of the data is the undeniable impact of the issue on the reputation of everyone involved. We’re following all the key players, from the Executive Branch and Congress to the most invested industry stakeholders and interest groups, and it’s clear that simply being associated with the issue comes with an unnerving amount of reputational risk.

Of course, this isn’t a shocking discovery. There’s a lot on the line, and people are watching. And we know health care is a controversial issue. It’s laced with uncertainty and complicated by the motives of deeply entrenched interests who don’t much care for each other – we would expect the issue to affect reputation. But, even considering these factors, the degree and volatility of reputational risk associated with the issue came as a bit of a surprise, and got me thinking about the unique challenges of managing reputation when involved in high-profile political debates.

Lobbying campaigns often become key drivers of corporate reputation in these situations (think Big Oil). Especially in the age of infotainment, lobbying attracts a high volume of media attention and tends to work its way into conversations about partisan politics and political corruption, which can generate dangerous levels of distrust and skepticism among stakeholders. Lobbying can also spark CSR concerns when sensitive environmental or social issues are involved – sometimes creating entirely new image problems, sometimes undoing the progress of past campaigns. In the worst case scenario, lobbying efforts become the public face of a corporation or industry due to concentrated political strategies, as we’ve recently seen with health insurance companies (remember when healthcare reform became health insurance reform?).

Regardless of how they’re created, most reputation problems associated with lobbying are usually ignored, written off as the “cost of doing business”. This is the wrong approach. Because lobbying campaigns operate at the intersection of business and government, they simply require different reputation management strategies than those employed in the more traditional practices of PR or marketing. In addition to the reasons listed above, these situations deserve special attention because lobbying the federal government can broaden stakeholder networks to include all taxpayers (i.e. pretty much everyone). Understandably, this expansion dramatically increases exposure and, by association, reputational risk. These risks include increased legislative and regulatory threats (it’s easier for politicians to impose costly regulations on groups viewed unfavorably by voters) and the infliction of hard-to-repair reputation damage (when lobbying efforts are used as the basis for opponents’ political attacks).

The good news is that these risks can be neutralized – but not without a clear understanding of the relationship between lobbying and reputation. This begins with the recognition that, critical as lobbying efforts may be, their benefits can be counteracted by the reputation issues they create.

Effective reputation management strategies must integrate lobbying efforts, consider the risks discussed above, and communicate good-faith reasons for participation in the political process. Transparency and honesty are key here: of course lobbying is primarily intended to help business, but that certainly doesn’t imply any wrongdoing. Lobbying is just one small part of corporate activity, so consider leveraging positive reputation from other areas against political attacks: being accused of corrupting the democratic process or using influence for corporate benefit that runs contrary to the public interest? No need to engage in mud-slinging, but why not respond with evidence of how corporate behavior generates benefits that extend far beyond executive offices? When you think about it, it’s easy to see how these things can be tied together. You just have to be willing to confront the “L word”.

Of course, this all hangs on the assumption that behavior can be justified; that lobbying efforts can withstand the scrutiny they so often encounter. When they cannot, there’s not much we can offer in the way of advice. But when this holds true, corporations should stop treating lobbying as a necessary evil too toxic to be discussed in the public forum – such denial only amplifies the problem, and it really doesn’t have to be that way.