You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Public Relations' category.
Consumers are putting pressure on corporations to be “socially responsible.” Thus explains the surge corporate branded reusable shopping bags and biodegradable paper products that have proliferated in the marketplace; however, corporate social responsibility (CSR) encompasses more than just corporate branded eco-friendly products. Although there is no universal definition of CSR, amongst the numerous theories the common theme is that corporations should have social initiatives that improve the well-being of communities. Smith explains that profit motivations exist when engaging in CSR activities, which he refers to as the “business case” and he also emphasizes the increasing motivation of business leaders to do the right thing, which he refers to as the “normative case.”[1] From Smith, one can ascertain that CSR policies and activities are created from a mixture of both of these motivations. Therefore, corporations have to “understand and proscribe the nature and scope of its CSR activities while balancing the business and normative cases.”[2]
The question is that does this balancing act of motivations actually happen. Hess and Warren argue corporations that have CSR polices or activities can be meaningless. As Hess and Warren explain, “firms that long used philanthropic activity as a way to improve their reputations may be using community-based social initiatives in a manner akin to “greenwashing” in environmental performance. That is, the positive public relations coverage provided by social initiatives deflects attention away from corporate practices that are harmful to society.”
Does this mean that CSR just another public relations tool? Is it feasible for corporations to make legitimate CSR decisions? This brief discussion will use Carroll’s four part pyramid model, as it is the leading CSR model, to serve as the theoretical framework and the latter part of the discussion will explore how public relations professionals can be leaders of implementing and CSR policies and activities.
CSR: Carroll’s Pyramid Model
Designed to encompass the entire spectrum of CSR, Carroll’s theoretical pyramid-model is a theoretical foundation of the development CSR polices and activities.
According to Carroll, “[i]n summary, the total corporate social responsibility of business entails the simultaneous fulfillment of the firm’s economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibilities. Stated in more pragmatic and managerial terms, the CSR firm should strive to make a profit, obey the law, be ethical and be a good corporate citizen.”[3]
The foundation of the pyramid is the corporation’s responsibilities, which makes sense as if the corporation is not profitable it is unable to contribute to the community. With that said, here is where the mixed motive comes into play. According to his model, it is within the corporation’s best interest to conduct business in a legal and ethnical matter and have philanthropic responsibilities. The model is inherently flawed as the underlying theoretical assumption is the corporations have CSR policies not of any genuine or authentic interest but purely to add to the corporation’s competitive advantage. As Geva argues, “..social responsibilities are accepted to the extent that they can serve a part of the firm’s competitive strategy. The underlying assumption of an expectations-based model such as the CSR pyramid is that companies do not pursue their humane policies for altruistic reasons alone. They do so because the nature of society is such that they could not behave any other way and expect to survive as viable entities.”[4]
This then leads to the “greenwashing” affect in environmental performance. Does this mean corporations are in a catch 22 situation? The central weakness of Carroll’s CSR pyramid is that it does not factor in the role of communication. As Clark states, “[t]he role that communication has in building these quality relationship is an important one; one that is largely unrecognized by CSR researchers.”[5] It is the role of communication that will prevent the catch 22 situation for corporations.
Public Relations Integrating with CSR:
CSR and public relations professionals should work together as a common objective of both is to enhance and strengthen stakeholder and public relationships. This view is echoed by Clark as she states, “it is critical that these disciplines acknowledge their similarities and work toward combining their efforts. Furthering the understanding of relationships and the effects of communication will continue to aid researchers and practitioners in the building of bridges between CSR and corporate public relations.”[6]
Public relations professionals are uniquely positioned to fill in the theoretical gap in the CSR model as they are skilled in developing appropriate communication strategies and the ability to analyzing relationships that affect the corporation’s reputation and business. Clark argues, “[c]ommunication managers have the ability to scan the political, social, and historical environment regarding a myriad of issues; likewise, business competitiveness rests on knowing who will be affected by a company’s decisions.”[7] Thus, it is critical for CSR to factor in the role of communication is developing CSR policy.
According to Macleod’s research data, communication about a corporation’s CSR activities are well received provided that the public relations effort complies with best practices.[8] Therefore, by engaging public relations management in the CSR policy development would ensure that communication plan is developed alongside CSR activities.
Public relations professionals would not only have the ability to effective communicate CSR policy but also advise whether a certain CSR activity or policy would be appropriate in a particular community. As Freitag argues that CSR needs “leaders with the experience and skills
to analyze community issues, identify potential points of tangency between the issues and the organization, and develop creative approaches and policies to address those issues in ways that benefit the organization and affected constituencies.”[9] Public relations professionals are able to provide this leadership to CSR. In the words of Freitag, “Public relations managers are uniquely positioned, experienced and qualified to guide that effort.”[10]
[1] Smith, N.C. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: Whether and how? California Management Review, 45(4),p.52
[2] Freitag, Alan (2008). Staking Claim: Public Relations Leaders Needed to Shape CSR Policy Public Relations Quarterly 52 (1) 2008 p.38
[3] Carroll, A. B. (1991) The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders, Business Horizons 34(July-August): 39-48.
[4] Geva, Aviva. 2008 Three Models of Corporate Social Responsibility: Interrelationships between Theory, Research, and Practice” Business and Society Review 113 (1) Spring pg. 14
[5] Clark, C.E. (2000) Differences between public relations and corporate social responsibility-an analysis. Public Relations Review, 26(3), pg. 376-7
[6] Ibid.5 pg 377
[7] Ibid 5 pg. 377
[8] Macleod, S. (2001) Why worry about CSR? Strategic Communication Management, 5(5), 8-9.
[9] Ibid 2 pg.40
[10] Ibid 2 pg 40.
In public relations, research is an integral process in planning and developing strategies and activities. In accordance to management practices, public relations professionals are being held accountable for their contribution to the profitability of an organization or a company. Given this demand of accountability, research takes on another vital role which is to measure the effectiveness of public relations activities; therefore, making research an ongoing process and but to be conducted at the evaluation stage. From this perspective, research serves a critical function, specifically in the evaluation of public relations activities and strategies.
Public Relations and Return on Investment (ROI)
In his article, Return on Investment (ROI) of PR & Corporate Communication, Jim Macnamara argued that public relations and corporate communications do make valuable contributions to companies; however, they cannot be measured in financial terms. Macnamara argued that since public relations and communication strategies are designed to achieve non-financial objectives (i.e. increasing awareness or increasing support) that a difference set of measurement tools are required.[1] As Macnamara stated,
“Many PR and corporate communication campaigns are focused on objectives such as building good community relations and improving the organization’s environmental image. Accordingly, its contribution must be measured in more than direct monetary returns even in financially-orientated public and private companies. Improvements in analysts’ views, media reporting, internal support, and community attitudes are all important Returns on Investment.”[2]
Macnamara explained that the essential part of the measuring the ROI in public relations/communications is by having clear and measurable objectives that are aligned with the appropriate measurement of communication activity. To supplement the measurable objectives, Macnamara recognized that in demonstrating ROI it involves a variety of research tools such as surveys, focus groups, interviews, media analysis, etc and gap analysis to compare pre-and post-campaign levels and conditions.[3]
Media Evaluation Research and the Importance of Media Content Analysis
Stressing the importance of evaluating media, Michael Blowers wrote an extensive research paper entitled, “Cracking content – a guide to measuring the media, present and future” where he outlined the academic background supporting media content analysis.[4] Couched in the ROI perspective, Blowers echoed Macnamara’s comments in regards to the importance for public relations professionals need to devise measurable objectives in order to demonstrate public relations ROI for an organization or company. As Blowers stated,
“When considering the return on investment for PR it is necessary to measure outcomes and not simply outputs. It is also crucial that the measures adopted are aligned with the overall objectives of the organisation….It is therefore relevant to highlight that return on investment for PR is not measured only in financial terms. Organizations need to consider very carefully their objectives; to see that they are clearly established, understandable, achievable and measurable.”[5]
Blowers goes onto to explain how media content analysis is contributing to the measurement of public relations ROI as it involves numerous activities such has tracking favourability and voice share, tracking key messages and tracking media exposure. These same activities are expressed in Macnamara’s table where objectives are aligned with a media measurement to demonstrate ROI of public relations activities.
Blowers maintains that there is a growing demand for a link between media output and organization outcomes; media content analysis is central to establishing this link. Despite its researching challenges, he also mentioned the need for public relations professionals to considering measuring online as this medium presents many opportunities.[6]
Measuring Blogs
Going beyond traditional media, there is a growing trend in consumer-generated media such as blogs. Blogs provide forum of consumers to voice their opinions on various topics. As Paine and Lark stated, “[m]ore and more independent bloggers — be they journalists, pundist, experts or ordinary gadflies – are taking to the internet to put forward their views to anyone who will listen. This phenomenon is shaking the communications world, as PR people envision yet another new medium to address. But blogs are also making PR researchers rethink their approaches as well.”[7]
Conclusion
From this brief examination, one can understand that research should not stop at the planning and developing of public relations activities. Moreover, research in the evaluation stage has dual purposes as for the public relation professionals it serves as a tool to measure their impact but also it demonstrates to organization or companies the effectiveness of public relations.
[1] Macnamara, J Return of Investment (ROI) of PR & Communication http://www.carma.com/research/ROI_Dis_Paper.pdf
[2] Macnamara, p. 3
[3] Macnamara, p. 5
[4] Blowers, M. “Cracking content: a guide to measuring media present and future.” http://www.meresearch.co.uk/MEresearch/index_files/Reports/VersionForWebsite.pdf
[5] Blowers, M. “Cracking content: a guide to measuring media present and future.” http://www.meresearch.co.uk/MEresearch/index_files/Reports/VersionForWebsite.pdf p.12
[6] Blowers, M. “Cracking content: a guide to measuring media present and future.” p .23 http://www.meresearch.co.uk/MEresearch/index_files/Reports/VersionForWebsite.pdf
[7] Paine, K. & Lark, A (2005) How to measure blogs and other consumer generated media
and what to do with the data once you have it http://ipr.wieck.com/files/uploads/PaineLark_05IPRRC.pdf
A dichotomy exists between the usefulness of professional codes of ethics to a public relations practitioner’s everyday activities and as an overarching code for the profession. With respect to everyday activities, a professional code of ethics serves only as a voluntary ethical guide to conducting business within the public relations profession. Conversely, the same code of ethics lacks an enforcement mechanism, which questions the legitimacy of the profession.
Code of Ethics and Everyday Activities
Professional associations such as the Canadian Public Relations Society (CPRS) and the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) have developed voluntary professional codes of ethics to function as a set of guidelines for practitioners’ everyday activities. As Hunt and Tirpok stated, “[e]thics codes represent a set of standards and guidelines for members of the association or organization to work by and also serve the function of demonstrating responsibility to an often skeptical public.”[1] Furthermore, the establishment of a professional code of ethics demonstrates that practitioners conduct business on the basis of fundamental ethical values.
Due to the voluntary nature of the codes, individual practitioners are “in charge of their individual and collective ethical destiny.”[2] From this, individual practitioners may use their own set of ethics, professional codes of ethics such as the CPRS or a combination of both. Therefore, potentially personal and professional codes can clash and result in unethical behaviour by a practitioner. The outcome is that there are no serious consequences for the practitioner when he or she chooses to engage in unethical behaviour. This then leads into the next section which explores the ramifications to the public relations profession.
Code of Ethics and the Profession
Aside from expelling a practitioner from the membership, there is no enforcement mechanism in place to address unethical behavoiur. As Wright stated, “[u]nethical physicians and attorneys can be disciplined, and, in some cases, removed from their professions. Such is not so in public relations.”[3] Without an enforcement mechanism, the legitimacy of a code of ethics is questionable. According to Olasky, the code has merely become a tool for public display to promote an image of public relations practitioners as being ethical.[4]
With that said, the professional codes are only useful to those practitioners that abide by them and have virtually no impact to those who do not. As Huang pointed out, “[w]right (1993) adopted Hulteng’s (1976) view, suggesting that the codes wind up being most influential with conscientious and responsible practitioners and having limited effect on those who really need direction.”[5] The end result is that the same code of ethics in public relations that advocates ethical behaviour is the same document that allows the unethical behaviour to go unpunished.
Conclusion
This brief examination of the dichotomy regarding the usefulness of a voluntary professional code of ethics to individual practitioners in their everyday activities as well as their profession reveals the complexity of the issue. Essentially, the professional code of ethics in public relations is caught in a catch -22 situation whereby it was created to elevate the profession but at the same time it takes away the legitimacy of the profession.
[1] Hunt, T and Tirpok, A (1993). Universal Ethics Code: An Idea Whose Time Has Come. Public Relations Review 19(1), p.5.
[2] Fitzpatrick, Kathy. PRSA Code of Ethics Moves from Enforcement to Inspiration [February 22, 2007] http://www.prsa.org/aboutUs/ethics/documents/enforcement.pdf p.3
[3] Wright, D (1993). Enforcement Dilemma: Voluntary Nature of Public Relations Codes. Public Relations Review 19(1), p.14.
[4] Olasky, M (1985). Ministers or Panderers: Issues Raised by the Public Relations Society Code of Standards. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 1(1).
[5] Huang, Y (2001). Should A Public Relations Code of Ethics Be Enforced? Journal of Business Ethics 31 (3) p. 262.
In the 1970’s, Burson-Marsteller was hired by the Argentinean government to improve the country’s international image as a way to attract foreign investment. At the same time, Argentina was under a military junta. Thousands of people were tortured and 35,000 people “disappeared” under the reign of this military junta led by General Jorge Videla . Given this situation, one would agree with Berkman’s statement that “[t]he bottom line in PR is to make the client look good. If, in a given instance, it happens that truth and desired image coincide, fine; but that is only a coincidental concern.”
Contrary to Berkman’s statement, public relations professional’s duty is not just to his or her client and that there is an ethical framework for which public relations professionals can use to guide them in making decisions. Utilizing the Burson-Marsteller and Argentinean government case, the purpose is to examine the role of advocacy, specifically, examining the professional-client relationship.
The Attorney-Adversary Model:
In comparing lawyers to public relations professionals, Barney and Black make the claim that these two professions are similar in the following ways: 1) both are advocates in an adversarial society; 2) both assume that the countering messages will be provide by someone else. According to this model, public relations professionals should only consider the client in their decision-making process and not have an obligation to consider other viewpoints outside of the client’s. As Barney and Black posited “[t]he reality is that there is no guarantee in the court of public opinion that adversaries will square off. Yet, just as a lawyer has no obligation to be considerate of the weaknesses of his opponents in court, so the public relations person can clearly claim it is another’s obligation to provide countering messages.”
Utilizing the attorney-adversary model to rationalize Burson-Marsteller working with the Argentinean government, one could argue that Burson-Marsteller was acting within the legal bounds of serving his client. As Harold Burson commented “[w]e regard ourselves as working in the business sector for clear-cut business and economic objectives. So we had nothing to do with a lot of the things that one reads in the paper about Argentina as regards human rights and other activities.” From this, the central weakness of this model is revealed in that the public relations professional’s responsibility is reduced to only representing their client; as a result, the public relations professional is not morally responsible for his or her client’s actions or behaviour.
Burson’s claim that they were not responsible for the human rights violations is an example of Gibson’s definition of an excuse. Gibson defined an excuse as “something that acknowledges that a wrong action occurred but seeks to show that the perpetrator deserves little or no responsibility for the action.” Basically, Burson’s claim that working for the Argentinean government did not constitute supporting the junta is an excuse and a way for him and his firm to absolve themselves, for which the attorney-adversary model permits, responsibility for the “disappearances” of 35,000 people. Furthermore, public relations professionals must take responsibility for their actions as well as the consequences and ramifications that either directly or indirectly related to their actions. As Bivins stated “individuals are responsible for their actions, or inactions, and their effect on others. Each hand that contributes to a chain of corruption within an organization helps forge a link of that chain. Even if we are not directly in the line of responsibility, there may times when an issue is important enough to act on a broader moral obligation. Public relations professional are also bound by an obligation to third parties, their profession as a whole, and to themselves to preserve their own integrity.”
Responsible Advocacy:
Unlike the attorney-adversary model, the theory of responsible advocacy seeks to reconcile the dual obligations of public relations professionals as an advocate and public conscience, which there is an inherent conflict between them. As Fitzpatrick and Bronstein noted“[t]hese dual obligations, which sometimes require careful balancing of competing interests, have sparked considerable debate among scholars and practitioners over the core function and fundamental values of public relations.” Responsible advocacy is rooted in the following three principles of professional responsibility as defined by Fitzpatrick and Gauthier:
1. The comparison of harms and benefits: Harms should be avoided or at least, minimized, and benefits promoted at the least possible cost in terms of harms.
2. Respect for Person: Persons should be treated with respect and dignity.
3. Distributive Justice: The benefits and burdens of any action or policy should be distributed as fairly as possible.
The strength of this model is the ethical connection between advocacy and social responsibility. By considering both roles, ethics becomes a realistic component for the practice of public relations. In other words, it is unrealistic to think that ethics can exist within the practice of public relations if a public relations professional is only obligated to the client and not to society.
Moreover, Fitzpatrick and Gauthier acknowledge that these principles are prima facie and not absolute. When these principles conflict, “the decision maker must employ his or her own values, moral intuition, and character to determine which principle is most important and most controlling in the particular context.”
Conclusion:
The attorney-adversary model is an unrealistic ethical framework for the practice of public relations as, public relations professional are not just obligated to serve just his or her client. From the Burson-Marsteller and Argentinean government case, one can see the shortcomings of the attorney-adversary model when a public relations practitioner solely serves his or her client without regard of society.
Responsible advocacy inclusion of responsibilities of various publics makes ethics a realistic component in the practice of pubic relations. Handling ethical dilemmas is the job of public relations professional and not just an option. Therefore, the public relations professionals should consider multiple publics and use the three principles, of comparing harms and benefits, respect for persons and distributive justice in making a decision.
Recent Comments