Ethics in IMC–PR
It is without question that ethics are important; they are a cornerstone of the field—because without ethics, practitioners have no credibility and the work loses integrity. PR is a powerful tool—if done properly, it has the ability to persuade and convince a public on any notion. Unethical PR can be any number of activities, including (according to PRSA):
• Misleading information
• Influence of management actions
• Promotion of substandard products
• Discrimination
• Destruction
• Gain at expense of others
• Political influence
One concept that I learned in my undergraduate studies is the “5 masters” concept. We, as PR practitioners are to serve and be true to (1) ourselves, (2) our clients, (3) our employer, (4) our PR practice or profession, and finally (5) our society. First and foremost, it is essential to be true to yourself, however, the group of others that are depending on your decision to be ethical, however easy or courageous that choice seems, is pretty extensive. As PR practitioners, ethics starts at the individual level, but then travels through a totem pole of additional authorities, with various priorities and ethical standards. Therefore, the decision to pursue an ethical solution might not be as rational or evident as one would think. For instance, I would never decide to work for a cigarette company, because of my principles and ethics most likely do not align with the clients, the employer, or society. A great deal of PR work is based on confidential company information and the message development to either release or conceal that information. It can be a very telling and tricky business for people.
Additionally, I found an interesting on the “PR Ethics Resource Center” that identifies three categories of ethics: Teleological, Deontological and Situational.
Extracted from http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Spring02/Holt/definition.html
Teleological ethics systems take on a results-oriented approach and are often referred to as “utilitarian.” This approach asks the question, which decision will provide the greatest good to the greatest number of people.
Problems with this approach:
• How can you calculate greatest good?
• Won’t you have to act before you can determine the outcome?
Positives of this approach:
• Requires a consideration of all alternatives.
• Requires practitioners to think about the consequences of their actions.
Examples of teleological ethics:
• The suggestion that public relations should serve the public interest.
• Making choices not based solely on financial considerations.
Deontological approaches to ethical decision making are also called “duty” ethics or the “humanitarian” approach. Deontological systems are based on the idea that human beings must treat other human beings with respect and dignity. In this case, ethical behavior is judged on whether the action violates human rights. The actions themselves are treated as “right” or “wrong.”
Problems with this approach:
• Which human rights are deemed more important?
• As society evolves over time, will norms of basic human rights change?
• Blindly following this approach could lead to considerable harm.
Examples of Deontological Ethics:
• Declaration of Independence
• Choosing not to disseminate false information because that would constitute an act of lying which is “wrong.”
Situational ethics suggests that decision-making should be seen as independent of specific circumstances. Instead of following the same set of rules in each decision, practitioners engaging in Situational ethics decide on a case by case basis.
Positives of this approach:
• Can be helpful when there are several conflicting ethical obligations.
• Useful when blindly following rules, as suggested by Deontological systems, would result in considerable harm.
Examples of Situational Ethics in Action:
• Choosing not to comment to the press when releasing the information could result in considerable harm to one’s client or the public. The conflicting ethical responsibilities in this instance include honest and prevention of harm.
