Download What happened to public responsibility? The lack of society in ... and more Slides Ethics in PDF only on Docsity!
Commentary: What happened to public responsibility? The lack of
society in public relations codes of ethics.
Monica Walle Bond University
The issue of ethics is complex and contentious. For public relations it is also critical, as the industry will only win the struggle to salvage its own reputation if it can clearly demonstrate not only a commitment to ethics, but also some means to enforce ethical standards. There are many ethical reasoning tools, both intricate and useful, that public relations practitioners use to try to make ethical decisions, and these have been widely discussed in textbooks and specialist articles (e.g. Johnston & Zawawi, 2000; Bivins, 1992; Wright, 1989a; Pratt, 1993; Kruckeberg, 1996). This article does not attempt a comprehensive overview of ethical schemas; rather, it takes one corner of the ethical practitioner’s kitbag of tools, the association code of conduct, and examines one aspect of code content; its stand on social duty. As practical ethics tools, codes clearly have strengths and weaknesses beyond their incorporation or otherwise of a specific ‘duty to society’ clause (c.f. Roth & Stravpoulos, 1996; Wright, 1993; Zupko, 1994). However, this article suggests that the absence or flimsiness of such clauses in some of the world’s leading PR association codes is too important a weakness to pass without comment. This article is intended not as a definitive word on ethics code requirements, nor an overview of their effectiveness and enforcement, but rather as a means to ensure that the important debate about ethics continues.
In an effort to provide members with clear ethical guidelines, non-governmental public relations organisations in several countries have outlined ethics codes. This article reviews the codes of the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), the Canadian Public Relations Society (CPRS), the Public Relations Institute of Australia (PRIA), the Public Relations Institute of New Zealand (PRINZ), and the Public Relations Institute of Southern Africa
(PRISA). These codes consist of 15 to 20 written “rules”, spelled out in short sentences, telling the practitioner how to behave ethically in the course of their daily activity. All the various codes are derived from the Code of Athens, developed by the International Public Relations Association (IPRA) in 1965. They all address practitioners’ duties towards clients and other practitioners by including clauses such as “only seek payment for services specifically commissioned” and “do not bring discredit upon the profession”. Most also include specific prohibition of unethical personal behaviours by practitioners, for example lying. What the codes do not spell out clearly, however, is the issue of the practitioners’ duties towards their publics and to society in general. Some contain mention of public interest, yet none of the codes explicitly addresses the issue of taking a stand on client behaviour where it conflicts with that interest.
The importance of ethics
In public relations research, agreement has existed for many years that ethics must be central to professional practice (e.g. Pratt, 1993, p. 219; Wright 1989a, p. 3; Schick, 1994; Pearson, 1989). According to Seitzel (1992), “the [future] success of public relations [….] will depend to a large degree on how the field responds to the issue of ethical conduct” (cited in Pratt, 1993, p. 220). The public relations field suffers from a poor public image (Shamir & Reed, 1990, p. 956). Studies have revealed credibility gaps between public relations practitioners and their publics (Bovet, 1993, p. 26). A critical look at the public relations profession’s reputation shows that much of this negative visibility relates to public perceptions about ethical standards (Bovet, 1993, p. 25).
In their role as communication manager, the practitioner is confronted with various choices and ethical dilemmas. Many of these dilemmas derive from the fact that what is best for the company often is not in the best interests of the society. For instance, for a tobacco company the goal is to sell as many cigarettes as possible, and the company will be better off if more people start to smoke. However, for society in general, this is not the optimal situation, as it increases health problems among the population. Seib and Fitzpatrick argue that, because “much of the distrust of public relations professionals derives from the lack of public trust in the institutions they represent” (1995, p. 7), public relations practitioners must take it upon themselves not only to improve their own reputation “both with the public and the organizations they represent” by acting ethically at a personal level, but also by actively seeking to “improve the social responsibility of client organizations” (p. 7). To take responsibility for such an indefinable quality as public interest is not straightforward. And intent is not always easy to put into practice. Public relations practitioners, especially those working as technicians, often experience over-ruling of their suggestions by upper management. However, as Wright argues, “the bottom-line of ethical decision making in [public relations] will continue to rest in the laps of individual practitioners” (Wright, 1989a, p. 4). Also, as Martinson concludes, the public relations profession “will never be any more ethical than the level of basic ethical morality of the people who are in [the field]” (1998, p. 14). Therefore codes should be seen to spell out social duty as a priority.
Conflicts of duty
Martinson (1994) asks whether public relations practitioners are responsible for client behaviour or actions. Further, he asks to what extent the practitioners are responsible for “bad” things that happen to others as a result of actions undertaken on behalf of the client (Martinson, 1994, pp. 1-5). The answer to these questions should be that the practitioners must relate to the same ethical standards when considering the client’s actions, as they do when considering
their personal actions. Aristotle argued that ethical behaviour is the balance or the “mean” between thinking and acting in extreme ways (Martinson, 2000, p 19). To Aristotle then, the ethical practitioner would be the one who balances between the welfare of the public and the welfare of the client. Most ethics codes contain clauses governing practitioner behaviour and methods; they require practitioners to ensure that the methods undertaken are ethical. Few would argue with the suggestion that it does not matter how ethical the aim of the organisation, the practitioner working for Amnesty International will not be ethical if using bribery to get his or her story in the news. Yet the reverse is also true; the bottom line is that it does not help using ethical methods if the product that is promoted is unethical. Yet how many codes of ethics also include specific reference not only to personal practitioner behaviours but also to ultimate social good? Ethics codes that ignore duty to society are not reflecting Aristotle’s fundamental call for balance.
How sufficient are existing codes of ethics?
In order to identify to what extent existing codes address social responsibility, the author evaluated five codes; those of the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), the Canadian Public Relations Society (CPRS), the Public Relations Institute of Australia (PRIA), the Public Relations Institute of New Zealand (PRINZ), and the Public Relations Institute of Southern Africa (PRISA). The different ethics codes vary in length, number of clauses, and to some extent content. The code that includes the smallest number of guidelines, with only nine paragraphs, is that of the CPRS. Containing twenty-four different clauses, the PRISA covers the largest amount of information.
Duties to society, public, client, profession, and self
All five codes include a paragraph stating that “the member shall deal fairly and honestly with his or her employers, clients, fellow workers, the general public, and fellow
conflicts with the social good. It is interesting to note that, in Australia, some consultancies have formed their own codes of conduct that extend or depart from industry codes on this issue. For example the code developed by Sydney-based consultancy Jackson Wells Morris (JWM), gives explicit instructions about how client/society conflicts will be resolved. JWM’s code states that, where social and client interests conflict, and “if the conflict is ethically relevant, JWM will seek to change the client’s position” (JWM, 2002, n.p.). This is not necessarily a new or unusual idea; back in 1988 IPR managing director John Fitzgerald told delegates to the Public Relations World Congress that his consultancy conducts careful social interest research before agreeing to represent clients, and asserted that “many Australian public relations companies refuse briefs” (p. 161). Yet industry codes contain no mention of assessing social interest in client selection.
Emphasising symmetrical two-way communication
All codes except the PRIA code include the paragraph “the member shall not corrupt or influence the communication channels and the media”. The PRIA code mentions that members “shall deal fairly with the communication media”, but does not explain what “dealing fairly” should incorporate (PRIA, 2001, §1). No code addresses the issue of establishing communication channels endorsing symmetrical two-way communication. The closest any code comes to addressing the issue is the PRSA code mentioning that the members have “obligations to the democratic process” (PRSA, 2001, §2).
Regular discourse about ethics and ethical values
No code addresses the issue of regular moral reflection. Most codes are posed in the negative, i.e. a list of prohibitions detailing what the practitioner should not do. No code encourages the practitioner in a positive sense to become more ethical or to reflect upon moral issues, for example by scheduling regular ethics reviews or discussions, or writing ethics reviews into
campaigning as a specific step in the planning. None of the codes specifically sets out requirements for practitioners to engage in pro bono work, for example.
Conclusion
Member organisations and codes of ethics have gone far in providing ethical guidelines for practitioners and thus developing credibility and transparency for the profession. But more emphasis must be put, directly and explicitly, on the public responsibility of the profession. Codes should include explicit directives placing social duty above client needs, fellow practitioner interests, and self interest. Only this way will the profession meet its responsibilities towards society and begin to address its own poor reputation.
References
Bivins, T. H. (1992). A systems model for ethical decision making in public relations. Public Relations Review , 18 (4), 365-384. Bleile, P. (1998). PR & propaganda: Where do you draw the line?. Communication World , 15 (6), 23-29. Bovet, S. F. (1993). The burning question of ethics: The profession fights for better business practices. Public Relations Journal , 49 (11), 24-27. CPRS. (2000). Code of Conduct. Retrieved March 13, 2003, from http://www.cprs.ca/AboutCPRS/e_code.htm Fitzgerald, J. (1988). A consultancy view. In S.A. White (Ed.), Values and communication; Selected proceedings of the 11 th^ Public Relations World Congress, Melbourne 26- April 1988 (pp. 160-163). Melbourne: Longman. Jackson Wells Morris (JWM). (2002). Code of practice. Retrieved December 20, 2002, from http://www.jwmworld.com.au/codeofprac/Co dePrac.htm#_ftnref Johnston, J., & Zawawi, C. (2000). Public relations theory and practice. Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Kruckeberg, D. (1996). A global perspective on public relations ethics: The Middle East. Public Relations Review , 22 (2), 181-190. Lordan, E. J. (1997). The whole truth and nothing but the truth: Testing the ethical standards of your employees and recruits. Public Relations Quarterly , 42 (2), 29-32. Martinson, D. L. (1994). Are public relations practitioners personally responsible for client behaviour or actions?. Public Relations Quarterly , 39 (4), 16-20. Martinson, D. L. (1996). Truthfulness in communication is both a reasonable and achievable goal for public relations practitioners. Public Relations Quarterly , 41 (4), 42-46. Martinson, D. L. (October 24, 1998). The church and public relations: Some important lessons. America , p.14. Martinson, D. L. (2000). Ethical decision making in public relations: What would Aristotle say?. Public Relations Quarterly , 45 (3), 18. Pearson, R. (1989). Albert J. Sullivan's theory of public relations ethics. Public Relations Review , 15 (2), 52-63. PRIA. (2001). Code of Ethics. Available: http://www.pria.com.au PRINZ. (2000). Code of Professional Conduct. Available: http://www.prinz.org.nz PRISA. (2000). Code of Professional Standards. Available: http://www.prisa.co.za PRSA. (2000). Code of Professional Standards. Available: http://www.prsapugetsound.org Pratt, C. B. (1993). Critique of the classical theory of situational ethics in U.S. public relations. Public Relations Review , 19 (3), 219-235. Roth, N. L., & Stravpoulos, M. (1996). Can't we all just get along: Cultural variables in codes of ethics. Public Relations Review , 22 (2), 151-162. Schick, T. A. (1994). Truth, accuracy and withholding information. Public Relations Quarterly , 39 (4), 7-10. Seib, P., & Fitzpatrick, K. (1995). Public relations ethics. Orlando, Fl.: Harcourt Brace. Shamir, J., & Reed, B. S. (1990). Individual differences in ethical values of public relations
practitioners. Journalism Quarterly , 67 (4), 956-964. Wright, D. K. (1985). Age and moral values of practitioners. Public Relations Review , 11 (1), 51-61. Wright, D. K. (1989a). Ethics research in public relations: An Overview. Public Relations Review , 15 (2), 3-5. Wright, D. K. (1993). Enforcement dilemma: Voluntary nature of public relations codes. Public Relations Review , 19 (1), 13-21. Zupko, S. J. (1994). The current debate surrounding public relations ethics. Retrieved July 30, 2001, from www.zupko.com/ethic.htm
