Text of lecture delivered in the National Webinar on the topic : “Ethics in Public Relations: The Modern paradox

Good Afternoon Friends, a few days back while surfing the twitter account I came across a tweet titled "ICCO SPEAKER SERIES” and the topic was ‘Why PR professionals should be masters of doing right? And my reply to the tweet was “Practicing Public Relations is all about earning credibility by doing only the right things and telling the truth i.e. being ethically correct and I strictly observe #IPRA and #PRSI Code of PR Ethics which is also known as #Code of Athens”. 

The topic of today’s lecture is “Ethics in business and public relations: The modern paradox. On July 23^rd I wrote a blog titled “IPRA Code of Conduct - Without Ethical Practice, Public Relations Has NO Purpose” wherein I have discussed about Public Relations Code of Ethics at length. Friends, whenever I discuss PR ethics, the very first question that comes to my mind - Is there such a thing as Public Relations Ethics?

 

There is a historical trend of associating public relations with all unethical things i.e. 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. An unfortunate belief among many journalists, policy makers, and laymen is the belief that the term PR Ethics is an oxymoron: either and unreal possibility, or smoke and mirrors to hide deception.

 

Now the question is - Is ethical public relations even possible?

 

Friends, most public relations professional bodies and trade associations all over the world e.g. Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR), Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA), International Communications Consultancy Organisation (ICCO), International Public Relations Association (IPRA) have some form of ethical and practice rule or code of conduct and that’s why the sanctity or purity of P R profession is intact till today. My lecture will focus more on IPRA Code of Ethics which has been modified and or redefined four times since 1961 to 2011 i.e. 1961 Code of Venice, 1965 Code of Athens, 2007 Code of Brussels and 2011 Consolidated Code of Conduct.

 

So, what is Ethics?  

 

The term “Ethics” is derived from the Greek word ethos which can mean nature, custom, habit, or character. At its simplest, ethics is a system of moral principles. Ethics is concerned with what is good for individuals and society and is also described as moral philosophy which involves systematizing, defending and recommending concepts of right and wrong behaviour. Definitions of ethics 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.

 

In the public relations discipline, ethics includes values such as honesty, openness, clarity, loyalty, fair-mindedness, respect, integrity, and forthright communication.  However, the concept of right or wrong varies with time, place and situation. They evolve over a period of time and cannot be applied uniformly as they are relative concepts.

 

Now, how is Public Relations defined with regard to ethics?

Public relations has been referred to as the “social conscience” of the organizations they represent, even though the degree to which public relations professionals have been able to impact the ethics programs of their organizations remains debatable.  Many PR professionals like me acknowledge ethics as a key principle of public relations excellence.  While personal and professional ethics are of great importance for PR practitioners  like me, what may be of greater importance is the role of public relations in the ethical decision-making of an organization?  That is, public relations, as the ethical conscience of an organization, must be able to guide and influence the decision-making process of the organization or public relations cannot function as an ethical voice at all.  Because public relation is the function that introduces the values and problems of stakeholders into strategic decisions and that introduces a moral element to those decisions.

In public relations, managing relationships has evolved into a popular phrase for describing the act of building and maintaining organizational relationships with publics. The first edition of “Effective Public Relations” (published in 1952 by University of Wisconsin and authored by professor Scott M. Cutlip and Allen H. Center and was the first textbook in the field of public relations) defined PR as the emerging field as a management function aimed at earning ‘‘public understanding and acceptance’’ (Cutlip, 1952, p. 6).  Twenty years later, the same textbook promoted the concept of public relationships and claimed that public relations encompassed ‘‘performance communications used to build profitable relationships with the public’’ (Cutlip & Center, 1971, p. 5). In 1985, the phrase ‘‘mutually beneficial relationships’’ was added to the definition. (Cutlip, Center, & Broom, 1985, p. 10).

These semantic transformations moved the field toward a greater emphasis on respecting and honoring the desires of the public, but they also paradoxically helped reinforce perceptions of public relations as spin and manipulation. How, something so well intentioned produced such a semantic disturbance can be explained by considering the desire of public relations scholars and practitioners to distance the field from pejorative concepts such as press agentry, publicity, propaganda, and persuasion (Ferguson, 1984).

Early practitioners re-framed these types of communicative practices under the umbrella of public relations. Subsequent scholars expanded that frame to include management and relationships and ultimately combine them into relationship management (Broom, Casey, & Ritchey, 2000; Hung, 2008). Relationship management ascribes to public relations - a power only available through controlling or manipulating the choice of other parties in the relationship.

The different levels of concepts inbuilt in language contribute to paradoxes in public relations. Even the label public relation is paradoxical. Public and relations are inter-related terms describing two different classes of actions that make sense by themselves, but together create a paradoxical tension and elude definition (Heath, 2005).  As an adjective, public can mean open or well known. Relation means telling or connecting two or more things. But much of public relations practice is performed behind the scenes. Public relations pioneer and the father of modern P R Edward L. Bernays described the practice as an ‘‘invisible government’’ (Bernays, 2005, p. 48) in which ‘‘special pleaders’’ manipulate public opinion (Bernays, 1928, p. 960). He defined PR as an attempt by information, persuasion, and adjustment to engineer public support for an activity, cause, movement or institution. Glaser (2012) contended that public relations’ focus on honest dialogue and transparency simply adds another layer of concealment to public relations practice. ‘‘If you can detect PR at work, it has failed’’.

Systems Theory of Public Relations explains that public relations professionals must constantly monitor their environment, intended goals, actions, and feedback from stakeholders and publics in order to make the necessary changes to the organization to fit within the environment and reach a goal state of equilibrium, is widely used in public relations, manifests this paradox in its classification of open and closed systems. Conventional wisdom dictates that organizations are either open or closed, with open being the preferred state of affairs. But centered organizations are neither fully open nor fully closed, but combine both elements.

As per the “The Mexican Statement” issued by the world assembly of PR associations in Mexico City in the year 1978  Public Relation is defined as “a practice and the art and social science of analyzing trends, predicting their consequences, counseling organisation leaders, and implementing planned programs of actions which will serve both, the organisation and the public interest.” 

As per Mr. Paul Garret – PR professional and author Public Relation is a fundamental attitude of mind, philosophy of management which deliberately places the broad interests of the public at first in every decision attracting the operation of a business.

As per Mr. Sam Black – PR professional and author The fundamental purpose of Public Relations is to establish a two way of mutual understanding based on Truth, Knowledge, and full information. 

As per Motion and Leitch Public relations is a meaning creation process with ideational, relational and identity functions. The ideational function of public relations would be to influence the concepts and systems of thought that shape how we think about things. The relationship function of public relations would refer to the construction of power relationships between discourse actors or “stakeholders”. The identity function of public relations would refer to the creation and transformation of the subject positions available to actors within discourse.

As per Courtright and Smudde Public relation is the measured and ethical use of language and symbols to inspire cooperation between an organization and its publics.

In the year 2011 Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) led an international effort to modernize the definition of PR and replace the definition adopted earlier in 1982 by the PRSA National Assembly.

Under the ‘Public Relations Defined’ banner, PRSA initiated a crowd sourcing campaign and public vote that produced this definition - “Public Relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics.”

Simple and straightforward, this definition focuses on the basic concept of public relations - as a communication process, one that is strategic in nature and emphasizing mutually beneficial relationships.

Now, the story of P R Ethics…………

 

At Athens, Greece on May 12, 1965, the International Public Relations Association - IPRA adopted a draft of an International Code of Ethics for public relations practice. The Code had been an object of the emerging IPRA since 1952 and was to become a major promotional strategy of the organisation as it grew from the mid - 1960s onwards.

 

Largely written by the French public relations leader Lucien Matrat (IPRA 2001), it followed an earlier IPRA Code of Conduct (known as the Code of Venice) and was adopted wholly or in a modified form by many public relations professional associations in subsequent years (IPRA 1995). The Code reflected the hopeful, post-World War 2 ethical framework with its linkage to the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948. It was the first international code of ethics enacted in the public relations field.

 

In the history of the Code of Athens’ development and implementation, which follows, the insertion of a human rights-focused moral core for this Code of Ethics will be seen to be an unintended consequence of IPRA’s founders’ desire to establish such a code. Other elements of this code and the Code of Conduct (the “Code of Venice” adopted in 1961) were similar to other professional codes of their time and have significantly influenced the current codes. (As indicated by Bowen (2007), CIPR (Undated), L. Grunig & Toth (2006), PRCA (Undated), and Wright (2006)

 

A leading US public relations practitioner Mr. Robert L. Bliss, who was the chair of the IPRA Research Committee, had reported in a later memoir that the Code of Ethics was a very high priority goal for the new association but that it was developed as a Code of Conduct. The Code of Ethics came later, as he explained.........

 

"To develop and propose a Code of Ethics. There was some question over the use of the word ‘Ethics’ at such an early stage in IPRA’s development, so the name was changed to ‘Conduct’. The 10-member international committee worked diligently for four years on the Code which was reviewed and accepted by the Board at the Second World Public Relations Congress in Venice in 1961 (Bliss, 1984)." The Code of Professional Conduct was adopted at the Council meeting in Venice on May 22, 1961 and was agreed by the IPRA Assembly and 2nd IPRA World Congress. It quickly became known as ‘The Code of Venice’.

 

In the year 1965, Mr. Lucien Matrat, Member Emeritus IPRA (France) was entrusted with the task of redefining Public Relations Code of Conduct, which was adopted by IPRA General Assembly, in May 1965 in Athens and popularly known as Code of Athens.   Adopted in 1965 and amended in 1968 and 2009, the Code of Athens is an undertaking of ethical behaviour by members of the International Public Relations Association and recommended to Public Relations practitioners worldwide. The Code of Athens continued in its 1968 modified form until 2011 when it was merged with other IPRA codes into a single 18-point code. Code of Brussels was adopted in the year 2007 and amended in year 2009; was an undertaking of ethical conduct on public affairs by the members of International Public Relations Association and also recommended to Public Relations practitioners worldwide to follow.

 

And, last but not the least, the Consolidated Code of Conduct was adopted in 2011 by the IPRA.  The Consolidated Code of Conduct is an affirmation of professional and ethical conduct by members of the International Public Relations Association and recommended to public relations practitioners worldwide.

 

The Code consolidates the 1961 Code of Venice, the 1965 Code of Athens and the 2007 Code of Brussels and is read as under;

(a) RECALLING the Charter of the United Nations which determines “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, and in the dignity and worth of the human person”;

 

(b) RECALLING the 1948 “Universal Declaration of Human Rights" and especially recalling Article 19;

 

(c) RECALLING that, public relations, by fostering the free flow of information, contributes to the interests of all stakeholders;

 

(d) RECALLING that the conduct of public relations and public affairs provides essential democratic representation to public authorities;

 

(e) RECALLING that public relations practitioners through their wide-reaching communication skills possess a means of influence that should be restrained by the observance of a code of professional and ethical conduct;

 

(f) RECALLING that channels of communication such as the Internet and other digital media, are channels where erroneous or misleading information may be widely disseminated and remain unchallenged, and therefore demand special attention from public relations practitioners to maintain trust and credibility;

 

(g) RECALLING that the Internet and other digital media demand special care with respect to the personal privacy of individuals, clients, employers and colleagues;

 

In the conduct of public relations practitioners shall:

 

1. Observance: Observe the principles of the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

 

2. Integrity: Act with honesty and integrity at all times so as to secure and retain the confidence of those with whom the practitioner comes into contact;

 

3. Dialogue: Seek to establish the moral, cultural and intellectual conditions for dialogue, and recognize the rights of all parties involved to state their case and express their views;

 

4. Transparency: Be open and transparent in declaring their name, organisation and the interest they represent;

 

5. Conflict: Avoid any professional conflicts of interest and to disclose such conflicts to affected parties when they occur;

 

6. Confidentiality: Honour confidential information provided to them;

 

7. Accuracy: Take all reasonable steps to ensure the truth and accuracy of all information provided;

8. Falsehood: Make every effort to not intentionally disseminate false or misleading information, exercise proper care to avoid doing so unintentionally and correct any such act promptly;

9. Deception: Not obtain information by deceptive or dishonest means;

 

10. Disclosure: Not create or use any organisation to serve an announced cause but which actually serves an undisclosed interest;

 

11. Profit: Not sell for profit to third parties copies of documents obtained from public authorities;

12. Remuneration: Whilst providing professional services, not accept any form of payment in connection with those services from anyone other than the principal;

 

13. Inducement: Neither directly nor indirectly offer nor give any financial or other inducement to public representatives or the media, or other stakeholders;

 

14. Influence: Neither proposes nor undertakes any action which would constitute an improper influence on public representatives, the media, or other stakeholders;

 

15. Competitors: Not intentionally injure the professional reputation of another practitioner;

 

16. Poaching: Not seek to secure another practitioner’s client by deceptive means;

 

17. Employment: When employing personnel from public authorities or competitors take care to follow the rules and confidentiality requirements of those organisations;

 

18. Colleagues: Observe this Code with respect to fellow IPRA members and public relations practitioners worldwide.

 

Sanctions

IPRA members shall, in upholding this Code, agree to abide by and help enforce the disciplinary procedures of the International Public Relations Association in regard to any breach of this Code.

 

Now, Ethics in Public Relations - The Modern Paradox”.

 

So what is paradox?

 

Paradox, which also known as an antinomy i.e. contradiction between two beliefs or conclusions that are in themselves reasonable, is a logically self-contradictory statement or a statement that runs contrary to one's expectation. It is a statement that, despite apparently valid reasoning from true premises, leads to a seemingly self-contradictory or a logically unacceptable conclusion. 

 

Paradox usually involves contradictory-yet-interrelated elements-that exist simultaneously and persist over time. In logic, many paradoxes exist which are known to be invalid arguments, but which are nevertheless valuable in promoting critical thinking.

Soren K, a Danish philosopher described Paradox as ‘‘the passion of thought and the thinker without the paradox is like the lover without passion”. Soren defined paradox as ‘‘unresolved contradictions’’ (Kierkegaard, 1985).

Cameron and Quinn (1988) defined paradoxes as ‘‘contradictory, mutually exclusive elements that are present and operate equally at the same time’’. They distinguished paradox from related terms of dilemma and irony. In a dilemma, one chooses one alternative over other attractive alternatives. In irony, the choice of one alternative leads to ‘‘unexpected or contradictory outcomes’’. But in paradox, one does not have to choose between two or more contradictions. ‘‘Both of the contradictory elements in a paradox are accepted and present. Both operate simultaneously’’. These ‘‘contradictory yet inter-related elements’’ appear ‘‘logical in isolation but absurd and irrational when appearing simultaneously’’ (Lewis, 2000).

Recognizing paradoxes and learning to accept and live with them is the first step for dealing with paradoxes. Other steps include clarifying levels of abstraction (thought), considering the role of time and space, and exploring new ways of looking at the relationship between contradictory elements (Poole & Van de Ven, 1989).  

This would require accepting that public relation is a human communication, plagued with human characteristics of complexity and unpredictability. Instead of viewing communication as taking place along a continuum (range) between advocacy and accommodation, it should be viewed as a global process of various types of communication, dependent on actors and context (Pang, Jin, & Cameron, 2010).

Resolving paradoxes requires re-framing the perception of the issue. Re-framing means changing meaning without changing the facts of the situation. Public relations as an abstract (conceptual) label describing an array of communication practices, was first used in the early 20th century. These practices had long existed in religion, politics, social activism, entertainment, and business as one of many resources to influence and change public opinion. Re-framing can help in identifying inter-relationships between contradictory elements. Community members become neighbors, employees become colleagues, and customers become friends. This re-framing acknowledges people’s mutual humanity and sets the stage for relating through shared values, interests, and goals - the essence of relationships.

As far as PR ethics is concerned I personally don’t find any paradox unless I don’t mix activities like publicity, propaganda, lobbying, corporate affairs and dark PR with public relations. I doubt that many of the public relations professionals practicing PR are even aware of the term PR ethics unless they have studied PR ethics as a subject at PG level and or are active members of PR organizations such as IPRA, ICCO, IABC, PRSI, PRCI, PRCAI etc. because upon joining any of these PR organisations, the members have to undertake to uphold the Code of Ethics or Code of Conduct.

As per a study conducted by International Association of Business Communicators - IABC on PR ethics - the majority of participants reported that they had little, if any, academic training or study of ethics. 30% said they had no academic ethics study of any kind and another 40% of the PR practitioners in the study said they had a few lectures or reading on ethics. These figure means that 70% of the professional communicators could be ill-prepared to face an ethical dilemma (problem) if they had no professional experience with PR ethics to support them.

In present day scenario, it’s very much possible that a few public relations professionals are doing unethical PR by totally overlooking PR ethics or re-framing PR ethics as per their conveniences or under the pressure of their bosses, or client(s).

I believe in PR ethics and strictly follow the ethics as prescribed by IPRA and PRSI. During my career of over 25 years there was never a single moment when I had to forego or put aside PR ethics on the pretext of making my superiors or the clients happy. As far as I’m concerned, there exists no paradox in PR ethics because I have never defined or redefined and or re-framed ethics on the basis of likes and dislikes, or whims and fancies or permutations and combinations and or the theory of convenience which suggests that the extent of individual convenience orientation determines to what extent a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his or her occupation will make a decision to violate the law here I will say deviate from or re-frame the PR Ethics whenever alternative decisions are less convenient. I always say that each and every PR professional should have sufficient domain knowledge and must fulfill his or her duties by observing the PR ethics.  

Words like LOVE, CARE, TRUST, TRUTH, RESPECT, LOYALITY, INTEGRITY, AFFECTION, KINDNESS, COMMITMENT, PASSION, APPRECIATION, and MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING have synonyms and antonyms but no paradox.

And to conclude a quote: Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.

 

Thank You