Code of Conduct

OePAV Code of Con­duct | 2026 Revision

Mem­bers of the Aus­tri­an Pub­lic Affairs Asso­ci­a­tion (OePAV) com­mit them­selves to com­ply with the prin­ci­ples of the OePAV code of conduct:

Preamble

Rep­re­sen­ta­tion of inter­ests and exchange of infor­ma­tion are key ele­ments of a healthy and pros­per­ous democ­ra­cy. They need to be sup­port­ed in the inter­est of all par­tic­i­pants of the polit­i­cal are­na. Inter­est groups and pub­lic affairs experts of com­pa­nies, asso­ci­a­tions, NGOs, trade asso­ci­a­tions and agen­cies are valu­able medi­a­tors between the econ­o­my, pol­i­tics, the admin­is­tra­tion and civ­il soci­ety. A high sense of per­son­al integri­ty, social sen­si­tiv­i­ty and trans­paren­cy is nec­es­sary to con­duct pub­lic affairs.

There­fore, in recent years, nation­al pub­lic affairs asso­ci­a­tions as the Swiss Pub­lic Affairs Asso­ci­a­tion (SPAG), the Ger­man Asso­ci­a­tion for Polit­i­cal Con­sult­ing (deIgeIpol), the Brus­sels-based Soci­ety of Euro­pean Affairs Pro­fes­sion­als (SEAP) and the Euro­pean Asso­ci­a­tion of Pub­lic Affairs Agen­cies (EPACA) have enact­ed codes of con­duct bind­ing their mem­bers. In addi­tion, the Euro­pean Com­mis­sion and the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment have agreed upon a code of con­duct for the Euro­pean Trans­paren­cy Register.

In a con­tin­u­ous process of pro­fes­sion­al­iza­tion, the Aus­tri­an Pub­lic Affairs Asso­ci­a­tion (OePAV) devel­oped a code of con­duct bind­ing its mem­bers. The OePAV code is based on inter­na­tion­al role-mod­els. In enact­ing a code of con­duct, the OePAV shows its com­mit­ment to trans­paren­cy and qual­i­ty stan­dards to pol­i­tics, civ­il soci­ety, clients and the public.

Self-Per­cep­tion

OePAV mem­bers regard their work as con­vey­ing infor­ma­tion and rep­re­sent­ing inter­ests. They are con­vinced that they make sig­nif­i­cant and legit­i­mate con­tri­bu­tions to basic demo­c­ra­t­ic process­es like defin­ing opin­ion and mak­ing deci­sion. In their work, OePAV mem­bers sup­port and com­ply with all applic­a­ble laws par­tic­u­lar­ly the free­dom of speech, the right to infor­ma­tion, the inde­pen­den­cy of the media and the pro­tec­tion of per­son­al rights.

Integri­ty, trans­paren­cy and com­pli­ance with the basic demo­c­ra­t­ic order are require­ments for the work of OePAV mem­bers and are inte­gral parts of their self-conception.

Tol­er­ance as a Guid­ing Principle

In an open and demo­c­ra­t­ic soci­ety, tol­er­ance toward those with dif­fer­ing views, as well as toward peo­ple with diverse sex­u­al ori­en­ta­tions and gen­der iden­ti­ties, is a core val­ue. Polit­i­cal com­mu­ni­ca­tion bears a spe­cial respon­si­bil­i­ty in this regard: it should not only give voice to dif­fer­ing opin­ions but also pro­mote respect­ful inter­ac­tion. Espe­cial­ly in polit­i­cal dis­course, it is essen­tial that diver­si­ty is rec­og­nized and protected—regardless of gen­der, gen­der iden­ti­ty, eth­nic­i­ty, reli­gion, world­view, age, sex­u­al ori­en­ta­tion, and dis­abil­i­ty. A demo­c­ra­t­ic debate thrives on the exchange of dif­fer­ent per­spec­tives but must nev­er be dis­crim­i­na­to­ry or exclusionary.

At the same time, it must be clear: tol­er­ance ends where hate begins. Hate speech must not be mis­un­der­stood as part of free speech. It is not an expres­sion of diver­si­ty, but an attack on the dig­ni­ty and safe­ty of peo­ple. Pub­lic Affairs must there­fore take a clear stance against all forms of hate speech, exclu­sion, and vio­lence. This is the only way to cre­ate an envi­ron­ment in which every­one can par­tic­i­pate equal­ly and freely unfold their potential.

Principles

Deal­ing with Extrem­ist Organizations

The OePAV Code of Con­duct, which is bind­ing for all mem­bers, includes respect for the demo­c­ra­t­ic con­sti­tu­tion­al order and the rule of law:

Dif­fer­ences of opin­ion and dis­cus­sions are essen­tial com­po­nents of our plu­ral­is­tic and lib­er­al soci­ety. How­ev­er, when the fun­da­men­tal val­ues of our demo­c­ra­t­ic con­sti­tu­tion­al order are attacked or ques­tioned, bound­aries have been crossed. Every OePAV mem­ber there­fore com­mits to pro­tect­ing and defend­ing demo­c­ra­t­ic and con­sti­tu­tion­al prin­ci­ples, as well as to tak­ing a firm stance against indi­vid­u­als or groups that attempt to under­mine this con­sti­tu­tion­al order. The report on the pro­tec­tion of the con­sti­tu­tion issued by the Direc­torate State Pro­tec­tion and Intel­li­gence Ser­vice in Aus­tria (DSN) serves as the cen­tral ref­er­ence frame­work for assess­ing extrem­ist actors. When oper­at­ing at the inter­na­tion­al lev­el, addi­tion­al ref­er­ence sources must be consulted—generally, the clas­si­fi­ca­tion of an orga­ni­za­tion as extrem­ist is always based on rec­og­nized, offi­cial, or judi­cial sources with­in the respec­tive legal jurisdiction.

As inter­est rep­re­sen­ta­tives, we are called upon to active­ly pro­mote democ­ra­cy, to take a clear stance against extrem­ist orga­ni­za­tions, and to refuse to pro­vide them with a plat­form for spread­ing extrem­ist con­tent. As OePAV mem­bers, we do not work for extrem­ist orga­ni­za­tions, either direct­ly or indi­rect­ly, and advise our employ­ers and clients against con­tact­ing such extrem­ist orga­ni­za­tions and their rep­re­sen­ta­tives. Fur­ther­more, we rec­om­mend not par­tic­i­pat­ing in activ­i­ties orga­nized by or for such extrem­ist organizations.

If rep­re­sen­ta­tives of extrem­ist orga­ni­za­tions hold pub­lic func­tions or offices, they may be rel­e­vant to our pub­lic affairs work due to the deci­sion-mak­ing author­i­ty asso­ci­at­ed with those roles. Only when inter­ac­tion with these indi­vid­u­als is unavoid­able do we con­sid­er it legit­i­mate to present our inter­ests to them in their pub­lic func­tions or offices, while mak­ing clear our own crit­i­cal stance toward the extrem­ist organization’s position.

Mem­bers of OEPAV com­mit them­selves to com­ply with the fol­low­ing prin­ci­ples in their busi­ness life:

Arti­cle 1: Hon­esty and transparency

OePAV mem­bers must be hon­est and accu­rate in their inter­re­la­tions with clients, polit­i­cal insti­tu­tions, the leg­isla­tive and exec­u­tive bod­ies, the media and the pub­lic. They must not mis­lead by using inac­cu­rate or incom­plete infor­ma­tion. Mem­bers of the OePAV must pay atten­tion to trans­paren­cy. They must dis­close their clients’ iden­ti­ty when act­ing on their behalf. 

Arti­cle 2: Con­fi­den­tial­i­ty and con­flict of interest

OePAV mem­bers are com­mit­ted to dis­cre­tion in their work. Meet­ings with politi­cians or mem­bers of the admin­is­tra­tion must be con­fi­den­tial unless oth­er­wise agreed. Con­sul­tants must pro­tect con­fi­den­tial infor­ma­tion and pro­tect pri­va­cy rights of their cur­rent and for­mer clients. Con­fi­den­tial infor­ma­tion con­cern­ing cur­rent and for­mer clients must not be passed on with­out the clients’ explic­it approval. OePAV mem­bers must not accept an assign­ment that may cause con­flicts of interest.

Arti­cle 3: Dis­hon­est methods

In rep­re­sent­ing their clients’ inter­ests, OePAV mem­bers must refrain from any dis­hon­est or ille­gal behav­ior. They must not give direct or indi­rect finan­cial incen­tives. If a client request­ed an ille­gal action from the con­sul­tant, the con­sul­tant would have to decline the request and inform the client about the rea­sons for his decline.

Arti­cle 4: No discrimination

OeP­VA mem­bers must not dis­crim­i­nate against gen­der, reli­gious beliefs, eth­ni­cal back­grounds, age, dis­abil­i­ties or sex­u­al ori­en­ta­tion. OePAV mem­bers must not par­tic­i­pate in dis­crim­i­na­to­ry actions.

Arti­cle 5: Respect

OePAV mem­bers must treat their clients, col­leagues and con­tacts respect­ful­ly. They must con­sid­er their per­son­al and pro­fes­sion­al rep­u­ta­tion and strength­en it when­ev­er possible.

Arti­cle 6: Incompatibility

The work of pub­lic affairs pro­fes­sion­als is not com­pat­i­ble with a func­tion in admin­is­tra­tive or exec­u­tive bod­ies includ­ing bod­ies of the Euro­pean Union.

Arti­cle 7: Pro­tect­ing and advanc­ing the pro­fes­sion; competition

OePAV mem­bers must avoid any behav­ior that could dam­age the rep­u­ta­tion of the pub­lic affairs busi­ness, the OePAV or its members.

Arti­cle 8: Compensation

OePAV mem­bers must sign writ­ten con­tracts with their clients deter­min­ing the terms and con­di­tions for their ser­vices, includ­ing rea­son­able pay­ment. Com­mis­sion pay­ments must not be offered nor accepted.

Deal­ing with Gen­er­a­tive Arti­fi­cial Intelligence

The use of AI holds great promise and offers numer­ous oppor­tu­ni­ties for many areas of soci­ety, but at the same time presents a wide range of tech­ni­cal and eth­i­cal chal­lenges. The use of AI also has the poten­tial to neg­a­tive­ly influ­ence dis­course with­in the demo­c­ra­t­ic sys­tem. In par­tic­u­lar, when the use of AI leads to a vio­la­tion of the prin­ci­ple of truth­ful­ness and democ­ra­cy is under­mined. This can erode people’s trust in dis­course and its par­tic­i­pants. AI may also ampli­fy the crit­i­cal effects of social media through its cre­ativ­i­ty, speed and abil­i­ty to gen­er­ate relevance.

As pub­lic affairs pro­fes­sion­als, we view peo­ple as the cen­ter of soci­ety and pol­i­tics. AI must there­fore not replace peo­ple in their polit­i­cal and con­sti­tu­tion­al func­tions at any point in the demo­c­ra­t­ic sys­tem. The use of AI in polit­i­cal com­mu­ni­ca­tion must not replace human dis­course, nor may it vio­late fun­da­men­tal rights, breach the legal order or infringe the rights of third parties.

OePAV mem­bers are aware of the oppor­tu­ni­ties and risks of arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence and han­dle it respon­si­bly and ethically.

As mem­bers of the OePAV, we use AI in such a way that a human always bears ulti­mate respon­si­bil­i­ty. If, due to tech­ni­cal con­straints or the nature of the appli­ca­tion, human approval or deci­sion-mak­ing is not pos­si­ble, tech­ni­cal mea­sures must be tak­en to ensure that the eth­i­cal prin­ci­ples of this rec­om­men­da­tion are upheld. In such cas­es, AI-gen­er­at­ed con­tent is clear­ly labeled as such. This applies regard­less of legal obligations.

Gen­er­al terms

OePAV mem­bers accept the code in its cur­rent ver­sion when join­ing the OePAV. They active­ly con­tribute to its com­pli­ance, cir­cu­la­tion and refinement.

The OePAV releas­es a list of mem­bers reg­u­lar­ly to com­ply with the prin­ci­ple of transparency.

OePAV mem­bers may use their mem­ber­ship pub­licly to assure clients their qual­i­ty standards.

The OePAV board of direc­tors must update the code of con­duct once a year.

Pro­ceed­ings

Any vio­la­tion of Arti­cles 1 to 8 may lay the ground for a pro­ceed­ing. A pro­ceed­ing may result in sanc­tions rang­ing from a for­mal writ­ten warn­ing to a com­plete exclu­sion from the OePAV. Exclu­sions are exe­cut­ed by the board of direc­tors. The indi­vid­ual sanc­tion is deter­mined by the degree of unlaw­ful­ness of the action and the extent of rep­u­ta­tion dam­age for the pub­lic affairs business.

Vio­la­tions of the code may be noti­fied to the code of con­duct com­mit­tee by OePAV mem­bers, polit­i­cal deci­sion mak­ers, media rep­re­sen­ta­tives or indi­vid­u­als. Noti­fi­ca­tions can­not be done anony­mous­ly. Noti­fi­ca­tions must include their jus­ti­fi­ca­tion with inclu­sion of facts and spec­i­fy the vio­lat­ed article.

If a pro­ceed­ing is ini­ti­at­ed, the code of con­duct com­mit­tee judges the case and gives rec­om­men­da­tions to the board of direc­tors. The affect­ed OePAV mem­ber is enti­tled to be heard. Mem­bers of the com­mit­tee are two unbi­ased mem­bers of the board of direc­tors and one exter­nal legal expert. The com­mit­tee has to deliv­er its rec­om­men­da­tions with­in a peri­od of 8 weeks after noti­fi­ca­tion. Rec­om­men­da­tions have to be made in writ­ten form. The board of direc­tors decides by major­i­ty. Its deci­sions have to be pub­lished in writ­ten form.

Dr. Georg Lienbacher

The ÖPAV is pleased to announce that Dr. Georg Lien­bach­er will sup­port us as a high-rank­ing legal advis­er. He will exam­ine report­ed vio­la­tions of the code of con­duct togeth­er with two impar­tial board mem­bers and devel­op rec­om­men­da­tions for sanc­tion­ing deci­sions. Univ. Prof. Dr. Lien­bach­er will car­ry out this activ­i­ty on a vol­un­tary basis. 

Lien­bach­er was born in Hallein in 1961 and received his doc­tor­ate in Salzburg in 1985. After work­ing at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Salzburg and in the con­sti­tu­tion­al ser­vice of the Fed­er­al Chan­cellery, he com­plet­ed his habil­i­ta­tion in 2001 and worked, among oth­er things, as Sec­tion Head and head of the con­sti­tu­tion­al ser­vice in the Fed­er­al Chan­cellery. He was a mem­ber of var­i­ous expert groups and has been chair­man of the Aus­tri­an Soci­ety for Leg­isla­tive Stud­ies (ÖGGL) and chair­man of the Insti­tute for Aus­tri­an and Euro­pean Pub­lic Law at the Vien­na Uni­ver­si­ty of Eco­nom­ics and Busi­ness since 2010. Since 2011 Univ. Prof. Dr. Lien­bach­er is a mem­ber of the Con­sti­tu­tion­al Court.