Do you think it is the role of PR to act as an organisation’s “ethical guardian”? How do the key ideas of the rhetorical approach to public relations thinking affect the ability of practitioners to adopt this position? Is this a problem for the field?
The role of PR in society has been debated since the professions emergence and will continue to be debated as society evolves and presents new challenges. One of the more recent challenges for PR is the publics increasing demand for ethical and socially responsible behaviour. But is it the responsibility of the PR practitioner to adopt the role of ‘ethical guardian’ or is this outside of PR’s responsibility?
To establish whether it is the role of PR to act as an organisations ‘ethical guardian’, first we must understand what the term implies: “The term ‘guardian’ implies an expertise and responsibility for others, in this context, the public interest. The use of the term ‘ethics’ implies the ability to make clear moral judgments based on moral frameworks, thus overlapping with legal and religious domains. ‘Ethical guardian’ thus implies a high status in society attracting power and responsibility, so one would expect some considerable expertise to carry out that role.” L’Etang (2003) This analysis of the concept focuses on the practitioner’s ethical responsibilities to make moral judgments and decisions in the interests of the public but there are two main considerations here: who’s ethics should be applied to the decision-making process; and to whom does PR have responsibility – is it only the public?
Ethics are moral guidelines and principles which guide our behaviour, but ethics may come from many sources: PR practitioners may have their own moral beliefs, be guided by codes and guidelines of the profession as outlined in the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) Code of Conduct and also be bound by the corporate values of the organisation which they represent and these ethics may not always be compatible. The CIPR Code of Conduct guides the profession and the CIPR has disciplinary powers to which all members adhere. The Professional Practices Committee of the Institute handles complaints against members of the Institute who may be in breach of the Code. However, there is a massive disparity between the number of PR practitioners in the UK and the number of CIPR members (48,000 practitioners, 9,000 members approx) which raises doubts over the effectiveness of this code and the influence of the Institute.
Various approaches exist to aid the PR practitioner in the decision-making process - the three main ethical systems are; the Deontological approach, the Teleological approach; and the Situational approach but there is no common agreement on which of these approaches is ‘right’. Ethics must therefore come from integrity, fairness and honesty rather than an agreed approach to decision making. The Potter Box model and the Navran model are designed to provide an ethical framework for decision-making but the PR practitioner does not always have the luxury of time and resource to carry out these analyses for each decision that needs to be made.
Whilst trying to reconcile these different ethical considerations, the PR practitioner must also consider to whom they are responsible; the public, the organisation or the profession – or all of these. L’Etang (2003) suggests ‘guardian’ implies a responsibility to public interest, and although many definitions of public relations refer to public interest and public welfare, the PR practitioner also has responsibility to others. The responsibilities of an organisation are complex; they include responsibilities for customers, employees, investors, suppliers, the local community, the physical environment, the country and even the world (Cavanagh and McGovern, 1988 cited in Daugherty, 2001). And it is not only the PR practitioner that has responsibility to these stakeholders – many different employees within the organisation will be required to adopt ethical practises when dealing with them. Employees must be clear about the organisations mission and performance standards so that they can be reinforced in all practises (Daugherty, 2001). The PR practitioner should have the best understanding of the different publics to whom the organisation is responsible, and could therefore be considered to be better placed to understand the ethical expectations demanded by these different groups but this does not constitute the title of ‘ethical guardian’. Mau and Dennis (1994, cited in Daugherty, 2001) suggested that PR practitioners should act as the ‘organisations radar’ by establishing relationships with stakeholders, understanding stakeholders needs and demands and formulating their organisations responses.
The role and function of PR is varied – this can be demonstrated by the number of different definitions of the profession. There are also different aspects of PR that require different approaches which may not always be considered ‘ethical’ for example publicity, media relations and crisis communications. Crisis communications techniques often require stemming negative publicity or withholding information which infringes the public interest which can compromise the ethics of the organisation (L’Etang, 2003, 65). We should also consider organisational practises that may be considered unethical, for example animal testing. A PR practitioner may represent an organisation which tests products on animals and may believe that the sacrifice of the animal is small in comparison to the benefits the research would bring to society. The medical researcher would also agree. However, some publics would consider animal testing to be unethical in any circumstances and other employees of the organisation may also take this view. For the PR practitioner to be an ‘ethical guardian’ protecting the public interest is a normative approach to PR that would not be practicable with such a diverse public with many different moral principles guided by religion, culture, upbringing, education and personal beliefs. With so many ethical considerations, and a responsibility to so many different groups the term ‘ethical guardian’ seems too ambiguous to encompass all of the demands on PR.
Another difficulty with the term ‘ethical guardian’ is that public relations itself is seen as morally dubious (L’Etang, 2003, 61). Historically, many practices of the PR professional have held negative connotations and been considered unethical such as propaganda, publicity and ‘spin’ hence the PR practitioner has often been required to justify their role and prove the credibility of the profession. L’Etang (2003, 55) suggests that the claim to the status of ethical guardian by PR practitioners can be seen as part of the claim for social legitimacy. This view is also held by Starck and Kruckberg (2003) who claim that an important part of the professionalisation of PR will be an articulation of the professional ethical values that define public relations practitioners’ relationship to society. In this way, the PR practitioner could be considered an ‘ethical guardian’ for the profession. In a claim for greater legitimacy, PR has tried to dissociate with these unethical practices and adopt greater association with the professional body (CIPR), ethical practices such as corporate social responsibility, and has argued for PR to adopt a more strategic role in the management of organisations rather than merely and advocate or rhetor.
Here, we could consider the role of PR as ‘ethical guardian’ to the organisation rather than to the public. The organisation should have corporate values that guide the actions of the organisation and these should be embedded in the culture of the organisation. It is suggested that PR should be involved in the establishment of these organisational codes of ethics and responsible for monitoring implementation (L’Etang, 2003). This idea supports the view of PR as a strategic management function. In this role, the PR practitioner could also respond more readily to public opinion and would have more influence in aligning the activities of the organisation with the expectations of the publics. This is reflective of the two-way symmetrical model proposed by Grunig and Hunt (1984). Considered to be the most effective and the most ethical model of excellence, this approach emphasises the need for a dialogue between the organisation and its publics with the goal of developing ideas, attitudes and behaviour on both sides. It has been suggested that the growth or corporate social responsibility exemplifies how organisations have responded to perceived societal needs and criticism of business (L’Etang, 2003). This recent emphasis on corporate responsibility and ethics isn’t a sudden burst of altruism from organisations and companies – it is a response to demand from customers.
The idea of dialogue is also prominent in the rhetorical approach to public relations although traditionally it was considered only a persuasive method providing advocacy on behalf of an organisation. This two-way asymmetrical approach focuses on encouraging publics to behave in a particular way. Whilst this approach involves obtaining the views of the publics through research, it does not take into account their ethics or views with an intention to adjust or respond to their ideas. This approach has been replaced more recently with a greater emphasis on dialogue rather than persuasion. According to L’Etang, the PR practitioner should “re-emphasis the public service values and to develop the notion of public service neutrality further in order to suggest that practitioners are not simple advocates and rhetors working on behalf or organisational interests, but specialists privy to organisational information but retaining an independent stance and, crucially, the ability and expertise to make judgements on behalf of both the organisation and the public” (L’Etang, 2003).
More recently, the rhetorical approach has emphasised debate and dialogue with the aim of uncovering the ethical truth. “The ‘truth’ can only be reached through argumentative dialogue that reveals which of the participating parties has better arguments” (Skerlep, 2001) The process is a two-way one which encourages debate through statement and counterstatement to test people’s views of reality, value and choices relevant to products, services and public policies (Heath, 2001). The process of dialogue is important here rather than the outcome of the persuasive communication – the notion is that if it is done ethically and rigorously then the outcome will be ethical (Gregory, 2002). Heath (2001) claims that rhetoric is ethical because it empowers participants to engage in dialogue but to ensure the process is truly ethical, the practitioner must facilitate the two-way dialogue, contribute information and be acceptant and responsive to the outcomes.
There are a number of criticisms of the rhetorical approach which PR practitioners should be aware of if they are to consider the ethics of this approach. It may be difficult for the public to determine what is fact and what is truth; there can be problems reaching a consensus over some complex issues; the public may not wish to engage in a dialogue; and there may be a lack of access for people who do wish to participate in the dialogue. To be considered ethical, the public relations practitioner must take steps to overcome these criticisms by enabling people to fully involve themselves with the dialogue, to encourage questioning and debate of information provided and to provide channels for this dialogue to occur.
Considering the PR practitioner in a more strategic role within the organisation allows these ethical practices demanded by society to be embedded in the culture of the organisation. It is not enough for the organisation to be seen to be ethical - chief executives must establish an ethical climate from top down (Daugherty, 2001). This must then be reinforced with action and a programme of activities that address these societal demands. The concept of corporate social responsibility began to emerge during the 1960s (Daugherty, 2001). Corporate social responsibility focuses the need for organisations to recognise the social consequences of their actions. These consequences should be managed through ethical codes, corporate philanthropy, community relations programmes and law-abiding actions (Wood, 1991 cited in Daugherty, 2001). The PR practitioner can implement these programmes of action, but these activities need to be visible in many aspects of the organisations work, which is then showcased through public relations. It would be quite simple for organisations to adopt the Fairtrade cause and consider this a demonstration of their ethics; Fairtrade has effectively become shorthand for ‘ethical’ (Mark Varney, Business Development Manager, Fairtrade, quoted by Butler, 200 
but publics are becoming more socially aware and are realising that companies who adopt the Fairtrade status aren’t always truly ethical such as Starbucks, Nestle and Unilever (Butler, 2008). According to Ian Bretman, deputy director of Fairtrade, “Companies are…recognising that however well the label works on products certified as Fairtrade, it is not credible within their brand unless they are consistent with its policies” (Butler, 200 The ‘ethical guardian’ here is required to ensure the practises are embedded within the policy of the organisation and this responsibility could lie with the PR practitioner.
So who should the responsibility for ethics lie with; the Chief Executive, senior management or the public relations practitioner? A survey that explored the views of CEOs towards corporate citizenship showed that CEOs felt proper exercise of CSR was vital to the company’s profitability but their concerns centred on the negative consequences of ignoring reputation more than on the potential benefits of responsible behaviour (PriceWaterhouseCooper in conjunction with the World Economic Forum). This suggests that there is a lack of genuine commitment to behaving responsibility from the top of organisations. However, in a study by Judd (1989 cited in Daugherty, 2001) public relations practitioners viewed themselves as the consciences of their organisations with 65% of respondents indicating that their responsibility to society was more important than responsibility to employers or clients. This suggests that PR is better placed to be the ‘ethical guardian’ of the organisation, understanding the demands of society and implementing programmes of CSR in response.
With so many ethical considerations, and a responsibility to so many different groups the term ‘ethical guardian’ seems too ambiguous to encompass all of the demands on PR. The PR practitioner has a responsibility to the public, to the organisation they represent and to themselves to behave in an ethical way when making decisions that will impact the public. When adopting a rhetorical approach to PR it is the practitioner’s responsibility to engage in the debate and facilitate the debate to ensure an ethical outcome but this does not constitute the role of ‘ethical guardian’. The term is an occupational myth which is now firmly embedded in the occupational culture (L’Etang 2003, p53) and whilst we cannot recognise it specifically within the role of PR, some of the ideas it stands for are very relevant to the profession.
References
Butler, S. (200 Good intentions, or just pandering to the consumer, SocietyGuardian.co.uk
Daugherty, E. L. (2001) Public Relations and Social Responsibility in Heath, R. L. (2001) Handbook of Public Relations, London: Sage
Gregory, A. (2002) To Spin or Not To Spin: The Ethics of Public Relations, Lecutre at the Annual General Meeting of the Institute of Public Relations.
L’Etang, J. (2003) The myth of the ‘ethical guardian’: An examination of its origins, potency and illusions, Journal of Communications Management (Vol 8, 1)
Moloney, K. (2000) Rethinking Public Relations: The Spin and the Substance, London, Routledge
Starck and Krcukberg (2003) Ethical obligations of public relations in an era of globalisation, Journal of Communications Management (Vol 8, 1)
Survey by PriceWaterhouseCoopers and the World Economic Forum (2003) Responding to the Leadership Challenge: Findings of a CEO Survey on Global Corporate Citizenship, World Economic Forum and The Prince of Wales International Business Leaders Forum
Recent Comments