PRINZ APR Accreditation 2013 Duncan Croft Assignment Two: What does it mean to be an ethical public relations practitioner? Introductory statement: The idea of an ethical public relations practitioner is an oxymoron for many people1. This view has undoubtedly been influenced by a number of high profile cases where public relations practitioners (‘practitioners’) have acted unethically. Major public relations firm Burson‐Marsteller’s decision to carry out a smear campaign in 2011 against Google – pitching negative stories to the press on behalf of an unnamed client that was later confirmed to be Facebook and behaving in a way best described as “furtive and creepy” (Fane‐Saunders, 2011) – is just one of many examples where practitioners have acted unethically. As a result of cases like this, the public relations industry is often associated with what Bowen (2007) describes as “all things unethical – lying, spin‐doctoring, and even espionage. Many critics argue that there can be no ethical public relations because the practice itself is akin to manipulation and propaganda.” Despite this view, ethics is actually an intrinsic part of good public relations practice. The majority of practitioners are not “amoral sheep” that service their clients with no regard for ethics (Lieber, 2003). Instead, they balance their roles as advocates for their clients or organisations with the public interest , while a growing number also play an increasing role as the ‘ethical conscience’ of their organisations (Whalen, 2010). As the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) points out in its Code of Ethics, “successful public relations hinges on the ethics of its practitioners” (PRSA, N.D.). If the public relations profession is to rid itself of its unethical reputation, it is therefore vital that practitioners behave ethically. But how do we determine what it means to be an ethical public relations practitioner? This essay will consider this question, comparing and contrasting some of the 1
This point was also expressed by Tim Marshall, former National President of PRINZ, at the PRINZ APR body of knowledge event on 23 July 2013. major schools of ethical thought and considering some of the tools that can help define what it means to be an ethical practitioner. What does it mean to be an ethical public relations practitioner? The Public Relations Institute of New Zealand (PRINZ) states in its Code of Ethics that practitioners “use communications to develop or maintain trusting, productive relationships between…clients or employers and their stakeholders,” promoting their views “to contribute to public debate and informed decision making in a democratic society”(PRINZ, N.D.). The code also states that a practitioner’s role as an advocate for their client or organisation must be balanced with the public interest. This balancing act means practitioners are regularly called on to make ethical decisions. Unfortunately, there is no ‘one‐size‐fits‐all’ ethics model which can guide practitioners in every ethical decision they must make. Some of history’s greatest thinkers, including Aristotle, Socrates and Confucius, have spent considerable time and energy pondering ethics (Tilley, 2009, in Mersham, Theunissen & Peart), yet there is still no universally accepted definition of what it means to be ethical. At its simplest level, to be ‘ethical’ means to be good (Tilley, 2005). The Oxford Dictionary defines ethical as meaning “morally good or correct”, while Bowen (2007) expands upon this by contending that ethics definitions “normally have in common the elements of requiring some form of systematic analysis, distinguishing right from wrong, and determining the nature of what should be valued.” Distinguishing what is ‘good or correct’, ‘right from wrong’ or ‘the nature of what should be valued’ is subjective, though. These decisions are invariably influenced by factors that have shaped the decision maker’s world view, including culture, education, religious affiliation and gender (Tilley, 2009). This makes defining ethical behaviour a very difficult task, and any practitioner “looking for consistency or consensus on the single ‘best’ or ‘easiest’ way to be ethical will not readily find it in the academic literature” because “there is no ‘one right way’ to be ethical” (Tilley, 2005). Despite this lack of consensus around what it means to be an ethical practitioner, there are a number of schools of ethical thinking which can inform practitioners’ decision making. The three schools this essay will consider – virtue‐based, consequentialist and deontological ethics – and their associated tools are the subject of much debate, with each possessing clear strengths and weaknesses for practitioners seeking ethical guidance. Virtue‐based ethics: The virtue (or character) of an individual is the single‐most important guide for practitioners in virtue‐based ethics, which is based on the teachings of Aristotle. Virtue‐based ethics encourages practitioners to consult their own conscience to inform their ethical decision‐
making. For example, a practitioner might ask themselves, “how ought a person of good character, a person of integrity, feel and act” in a situation that requires an ethical decision (Harrison, 2004). There are a number of commonly used virtue‐based tools that a practitioner may call on to determine whether their behaviour is ethical, including the ‘front page of the paper’ test and the ‘mum’ test (Tilley, 2005). The front page test calls on a practitioner to ask themselves how they would feel if their actions were reported on the front page of a newspaper. Similarly, the ‘mum’ test requires a practitioner to consider how they would feel if they described the actions they are considering to their mother. If the practitioner feels uncomfortable with their own response to either question, they should not carry out the action. The’ front page’ and ‘mum’ tests demonstrate virtue‐based ethics’ main strength – namely, that a practitioner’s virtues are always readily available to inform their decisions. This ‘availability’ can, however, also be viewed as a weakness; when practitioners are dealing with multiple stakeholders or publics and diverse viewpoints, for example, it is not possible to say that the practitioner’s virtues – which differ from person to person based on their experiences – are the only right ones for the given situation (Tilley, 2009). Consequentialist ethics: While virtue‐based ethics rely on the character of a practitioner to inform ethical decision‐
making, consequentialist ethics is based on making decisions that create the best outcomes for the most people – or, as defined in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “of all the things a person might do at any given moment, the morally right action is the one with the best overall consequences.” Consequentialism encourages ethical behaviour by requiring practitioners to consider the different consequences their actions might have on diverse stakeholder groups. This allows for multiple points of view from different audiences to be considered, rather than relying on the views of an individual or single group. In the past, some academics have argued that consequentialism has limited use in public relations, due to difficulties in predicting the future impact of a decision and the reactions of all stakeholders (Tilley, 2011). This criticism is being partially offset however by the rapid development of new media technology like blogs, online forums and social media, which present opportunities for practitioners to gain timely input from stakeholders. New media also has the potential to foster ethical behaviour by promoting two‐way communication to reach mutual understanding2. Social media in particular provides practitioners with increased opportunities to seek “diverse input from a wider range of voices and ethical perspectives” (Tilley, 2011). New media could also arguably empower practitioners to become ethical leaders in their organisation if it is used to increase transparency and to listen to stakeholders concerns (Toledano & Wolland, 2011). 2
The subject of two‐way communication has been covered extensively by noted public relations scholar James E. Grunig. According to Bowen (2007), “Grunig (1992) proposed that linkages with publics could be used to facilitate organizational decision making in a balanced, symmetrical manner.” Unfortunately, the anonymity of new media platforms – where practitioners can easily disguise their identity and affiliations – presents ethical challenges. This anonymity has led to unethical public relations practices such as ‘flogging’ (fake blogging), ‘astroturfing’ (bogus grassroots campaigning) (Tilley, 2011), or ‘spamming’ blog comment sections to achieve the goals of a client or organisation, as National Australia Bank did in 2008 to secure free promotion for a new text message banking service (Downes, 2008). While listening to a wider range of stakeholders and aiming to deliver the greatest good for the greatest number encourages ethical behaviour, consequentialism does not guarantee that a practitioner’s decisions will always be ethical. At its worst, consequentialism has the potential to partially obscure unethical means which a practitioner may use to obtain their desired outcome. For example, a pure consequentialist “would endorse a lie if it ultimately resulted in…more wide‐spread benefit than truth telling” (Tilley, 2005) – behaviour that most people would consider unethical. Deontological ethics: The final school of ethical thought this essay will consider is deontological (or ‘duty‐based’) ethics. Deontology focuses on an individual’s actions rather than the consequences of their actions, and involves a practitioner following a set of obligations “to another individual or society because upholding one's duty is what is considered ethically correct” (Rainbow, 2002). By honoring this duty to others, a practitioner can effectively counter “the individualistic nature of virtue ethics by using wider frames of reference for determining what is ‘good’” (Tilley, 2009). Examples of frames of reference include national laws, which prescribe acceptable standards of behaviour in society, or a professional code such as PRINZ’s Code of Ethics, which provides ethical guidance for the institute’s members (the merits of codes of ethics will be considered in greater depth shortly). It is apparent, however, that, like virtue‐based and consequentialist ethics, deontology does not provide an ‘answer‐all’ solution for every ethical question that practitioners might face. For example, it does not contend for an individual seizing enough power to change or influence a group’s rules which do not reflect the group’s collective values, and does not offer guidance on occasions where individuals are members of two groups which have conflicting rules (Tilley, 2009). In summary, the three schools of ethical thought considered above each have strengths that can help a practitioner determine what it means to be ethical. When applied individually, however, none offers a universal answer to the ethical decisions that practitioners must make. Instead, practitioners should ‘pick and choose’ aspects of each school of thought, depending on the situation they find themselves in. As Tilley (2005)3 says, the most comprehensive approach for practitioners looking to act ethically “is one that incorporates multiple ethical aspects, not only encompassing aspirational virtues for practitioners, but also setting some reasonable prohibitions or limits on behaviour.” Ethics codes: Codes of ethics are one of the most important tools used to establish aspirational virtues and limits on behaviour. Ethics codes can be described as a set of principles designed to help professionals conduct business honestly and with integrity, while potentially outlining how they should approach problems. While codes are bound by a number of constraints, they provide a great deal of insight into what it means to be an ethical practitioner. Academics and practitioners alike have debated the usefulness of ethical codes. One of the most common criticisms of codes is that they do not provide specific guidance on the different 33
Tilley has created a useful model, the Pyramid of Ethics (2005), which provides guidance on how practitioners can apply the different ethical models in the research, planning, communication and evaluation stages of a public relations campaign. ethical decisions a practitioner has to make, meaning that many practitioners find them too vague to be useful (Bowen, 2007; Harrison & Galloway, 2005). Parkinson (2001) is highly critical of the PRSA’s Code of Ethics’ for this reason, highlighting its lack of guidance as a major flaw, particularly when practitioners are “confronted with conflicts between their obligations to free and honest public communication and their client’s interests.” Another potential issue with codes of ethics is that they are not consistently consulted by some practitioners when making ethical decisions (Bowen, 2007). Other practitioners have indicated that they would rely on their own ethical judgement – as espoused in virtue‐based ethics – before they would consider consulting a code of ethics. For example, Charmaine Ngarimu, Manager – Media & Communications at Auckland Tourism, Events & Economic Development (ATEED), says that when faced with an ethical question, she would draw on “experience and sound judgment in the first instance, followed by advice from peers and colleagues, and then refer to a code of ethics if still in doubt.4” Arguably the biggest criticism of ethical codes, however, is that they are difficult to enforce (Harrison, 2004; Bowen (2007) Ki, Choi & Lee (2012); Parkinson, 2001). The ‘Timberlands’ case from 1999 is a well‐known New Zealand example which clearly demonstrates this. This case began after two journalists alleged that a public relations firm, Shandwick, had infringed PRINZ’s Code of Ethics on multiple counts. These allegations related to Shandwick’s work for a state‐owned forestry enterprise, Timberlands West Coast Pty Ltd, lobbying the New Zealand Government and building public support for logging on the West Coast of the South Island. PRINZ’s Ethics Committee launched an internal ethics review following these allegations. This review was eventually aborted however, following complaints from Klaus Sorenson and Rob McGregor – two Shandwick executives working on the Timberlands campaign who were also PRINZ members – about a lack of due process (Harrison, 2004). Hugh Rennie, a New Zealand 4
Interview with Charmaine Ngarimu, a PRINZ APR graduate and mentor, conducted on 3 August 2013. Queen’s Council (QC), was eventually appointed to conduct the review, and found that some of Shandwick’s activities – which included arranging spying – were indeed unethical. PRINZ’s only option for enforcement under its Code of Ethics however was revoking Sorenson and McGregor’s PRINZ memberships. The pair circumvented this by publically resigning from PRINZ first, while expressing their commitment to maintaining high ethical standards without the institute’s assistance (Harrison, 2004). The Timberlands case demonstrates the limited code enforcement options available to public relations organisations. This is not helped by the fact that practitioners are not required to belong to a public relations organisation to practice public relations (Ki & Kim, 2010). Despite these issues however, codes are an important tool for practitioners looking for ethical guidance, and are proven to have a positive effect on ethical behaviour. Studies have shown that practitioners working in firms with defined ethical parameters (such as those established in codes of ethics) are more likely to engage in ethical practices, while the existence of ethics codes has also improved the public’s perception of the public relations field and its level of professionalism (Ki, Choi & Lee, 2012). Bowen (2007) also finds that “when implemented with good intent, codes of ethics can be useful tools for developing an organizational culture supporting ethical decision making.” The aspirational values and principles included in many ethics codes also help to define common themes of ethical practice. For example, PRINZ’s Code of Ethics includes values such as ‘advocacy’, ‘honesty’, ‘expertise’, ‘independence’, ‘loyalty’ and ‘fairness’. These values were adopted from the PRSA code, while the Global Alliance for Public Relations’ [GAPR]) code substitutes ‘integrity’ for ‘independence’ and ‘fairness’. PRINZ’s code also includes principles such as ‘advocacy and honesty’, ‘balancing openness and privacy’, ‘conflicts of interest’, ‘law abiding’, and ‘professionalism’, with clear descriptions on how each principle should be followed. Similarly, the PRSA’s code includes provisions of conduct, guidelines for their application, and examples of improper conduct, while the GAPR’s code includes principles, a decision‐making guide and case studies. The values and principles in the three codes compared above share many common themes, including honesty, loyalty, and serving clients and the public interest through responsible advocacy. These themes – which can also be found in other codes of ethics across the world – should be embraced by practitioners looking to act ethically. The changing face of ethics codes: The three codes compared above share a common focus on providing guidance, rather than acting as a strict set of rules. This is a departure from earlier versions of the codes. Following the Timberlands case, for example, PRINZ’s Code of Ethics was amended, moving from a more rules‐based approach to “providing PRINZ’s members with support and advice, to minimise the needs for complaints” (Sele, 2006). The PRSA has also shifted its attention from enforcing its code to focusing on professional development and education programs centred on ethical communications (PRSA, N.D.) and the GAPR’s code similarly recognises that “no one can dictate precise outcomes for every situation,” but codes can be used to “apply common values and decision‐making processes to arrive at a decision and justify it to others” (GAPR, N.D.). As PRINZ, PRSA and GAPR have all signalled through their respective codes, the most effective way to encourage practitioners to act ethically is by encouraging them to develop their own understanding of what it means to be ethical, rather than focusing on enforcing the rules in each code. There is a lot of work to do in bringing ethics to the forefront of professional development for practitioners, though: an International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) study shows that 65% of practitioners receive no ethics training from their employers (Bowen, 2007). The challenge for public relations organisations therefore “is to move beyond an approach to ethics education and training which simply says, ‘here’s the code of ethics, now follow it’; to an approach that genuinely fosters habits of good character in practitioners” (Harrison, 2004). An increased focus on the importance of ethics in practitioners’ professional development is a vital part of this approach. Conclusion: While the questionable actions of some practitioners have undoubtedly influenced the commonly‐held view that the public relations industry is unethical, it is clear that ethics is a vital part of public relations. As such, encouraging ethical behaviour amongst practitioners is essential to successful public relations practice. As this essay has shown, there is no single way of defining what ethical behaviour is. While the three schools of ethical thought which have been discussed each have strengths, none offers a universal solution to the many ethical questions that practitioners must answer on a daily basis; however, a practitioner can apply elements of each model to their ethical decision making, depending on the circumstances they are facing. Public relations codes of ethics provide perhaps the single‐most important source of information on what it means to be an ethical practitioner. While they can be considered too hard to enforce or too vague to provide meaningful guidance to practitioners, they do provide some much‐needed clarity on what it means to be an ethical practitioner. Rather than being viewed as a strict set of rules, the codes considered in this essay have changed their focus to act as aspirational guides, highlighting common values and behaviours that practitioners can used to inform their ethical decision making. By embracing the values and principles included in ethics codes, practitioners can gain a better understanding of how to engage in open, transparent communication on behalf of their clients or organisations, while serving the public interest at the same time. The ethical lay of the land is constantly changing, and practitioners must be prepared to change with it. Only by continuing to reflect on and re‐evaluate what it means to be an ethical practitioner, and focusing energy into ethical professional development, will the public relations industry rid itself of its reputation as being filled with “amoral sheep” (Lieber, 2003) that are associated with all things unethical, and instead be seen as ethical champions. Bibliography Bowen, S.A. Ph. D. (2007). Ethics and public relations/IPR/Institute of Public Relations. Retrieved from www.instituteforpr.org/topics/ethics‐and‐public‐relations/ Downes, S (2008). NAB spams blogs to spruik its SMS banking. Retrieved from: www.crikey.com.au/2008/06/16/nab‐spams‐blogs‐to‐spruik‐its‐sms‐banking/ Drushel, B.E. & German, K. (2011). The ethics of emerging media: information, social norms and new media technology. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. Fane‐Saunders, T (2011). Furtive and Creepy (blog post). Retrieved from www.chelgate.com/blog/2011/05/furtive‐and‐creepy Global Alliance for Public Relations. Code of Ethics. Retrieved from: www.globalalliancepr.org/website/page/code‐ethics Harrison, J (2004). Conflicts of duty and the virtues of Aristotle in public relations ethics: Continuing the conversation commenced by Monica Walle. University of Queensland. Retrieved from www.prismjournal.org/fileadmin/Praxis/Files/Journal_Files/Issue2/Harrison.pdf. Harrison, K., & Galloway, C. (2005). Public relations ethics: A simpler (but not simplistic) approach to the complexities. Prism 3. Retrieved from: www.prismjournal.org/fileadmin/Praxis/Files/Journal_Files/Issue3/Harrison_Galloway.pdf Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/conseque/ Ki, E & Kim, S (2010). Ethics Statements of Public Relations Firms: What Do They Say? Journal of Business Ethics, 2010, Vol. 91, Issue 2, pp. 223‐236. Ki, E, Choi, H. & Lee, J. (2012). Does Ethics Statement of a Public Relations Firm Make a Difference? Yes it Does! Journal of Business Ethics, 2012, Vol. 105, Issue 2, pp. 267‐276. Lieber, P. (2003). Ethics in public relations: gauging ethical decision‐making patterns of practitioners. Retrieved from etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd‐0707103‐
111615/unrestricted/Lieber_thesis.pdf. Mersham, G., Theunissen, P., Peart, J. (2009). Public Relations and Communication Management: An Aotearoa/New Zealand Perspective (1st ed.). New Zealand: Pearson. Parkinson, M. (2001). The PRSA code of professional standards and member code of ethics: Why they are neither professional nor ethical. Public Relations Quarterly, volume 46, issue 3, pp. 27‐31. Public Relations Institute of New Zealand. Code of Ethics. Retrieved from: www.prinz.org.nz/Site/About/ethics_code.aspx Public Relations Society of America. Statement of ethics. Retrieved from: www.prsa.org/AboutPRSA/Ethics/CodeEnglish/. Rainbow, C. (2002). Descriptions of ethical theories and principles. Retrieved 27.07.13 from www.bio.davidson.edu/people/kabernd/Indep/carainbow/Theories.htm Sele, M (2006). Defining Public Relations in New Zealand through its history and practice. Retrieved from: unitec.researchbank.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10652/1264/fulltext.pdf?sequence=1 Tilley, E. (2005). The Ethics Pyramid: Making Ethics Unavoidable in the Public Relations Process. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 2005, vol. 20, issue 4, pp. 305–320. Toledano, M & Wolland, L (2011). Ethics 2.0: Social media implications for professional communicators. The International Journal of Communication Ethics. Vol 8, No 3/4 (201), pp.43‐
52 Whalen, P (2010). Should PR leaders serve as the conscience of an organization? (a round table discussion). Retrieved from: www.prsa.org/Intelligence/Tactics/Articles/view/8777/1020/Should_PR_leaders_serve_as_the_
conscience_of_an_or This essay also includes content from an interview undertaken by the author with Charmaine Ngarimu (PRINZ APR mentor), and comments from Tim Marshall made at the PRINZ APR 2013 body of knowledge event held on 23 July 2013.