While I agree with much of what you said, I don't think we can drop the notion that PR related activity is in shareholders' best interest and use of that ambigu

While I agree with much of what you said, I don't think we can drop the notion that PR related activity is in shareholders' best interest and use of that ambiguity of motive as a basis that corporations aren't typically acting in their shareholder's best interests. We can look at historical evidence to see how PR activity is typically used in cases we have evidence (the tobacco industry comes to mind, there's many more). While as an exercise, measuring intention is nearly impossible since determining motive is highly subjective, unless we can read minds (or internal emails/paper trials which are often guarded or intentionally avoided), we can at least look at public evidence and trends that we're aware of. In today's economy, perceived value reigns supreme over functional and monetary value, and utility takes a back seat. Manipulating perception is highly impactful on most fronts of increasing revenue. Advertising, marketing, branding, the amount of psychology utilized, data mining and tracking (for targeted marketing), etc.--most all of this effort is about manipulating perceived value to consumers by painting an idealized image of a product/service (propaganda)--and it works. Part of that perceived value manipulation is also painting a picture to the public that your company is "great." I've taken quite a few marketing surveys and you'll find quite a few questions about if you think a company is "good" or "bad." What your opinions are about the company (your perception), very emotionally tied questions. If you look at historical evidence, you'll see misinformation campaigns everywhere: from the tobacco industry to bottling industries to fossil fuel industries to the lead industries.... all these sort of campaigns have been about shifting public perception in the interest of the business, and therefore, the shareholders. It's not in societies interest (unless you support social darwinism) that we have rampant lung cancer or other cancers caused by lead contact. It's not in the world or societies interest that we pretend global warming isn't an issue when the scientific consensus, the method leading to humanities greatest leaps and discoveries, tells us otherwise. PR activity exists almost for the sole purpose of keeping the general public and your consumers happy (they also provide product/service information, when it's in their business interest). While not all PR activites are as calculated, most all efforts are to protect and foster growth of a business, and therefore most activity is for the shareholders. If a PR group's activity or business marketing campaign does the opposite and harms revenue, you'll find a lot of those people will lose their jobs. That's quite telling of the motive, at least for me.