therefore ethical as the end justifies the
means according to utilitarianism ethics?
This is a double-edged sword whichever
way one looks at it; and is bound to
continue drawing mixed opinions from
practitioners and scholars alike. The
truth is that some corporate decisions
can never be classified as black or white;
grey areas exist and it is therefore up to
the professional to refer to the foundation
of regulation for guidance and to apply
individual values in decision making.
Deontology: Duty and
Obligation
In another school of thought, the
renowned philosopher, Kant (1724-
1804) was of the opinion that members
of a society are obliged to carry out a
certain range of duties (deontology),
regardless of the consequences. This is in
direct contravention of the utilitarianism
proposition; and proves to be an even
more controversial model.
What happens when the ‘right’ action is
bound to result in widespread suffering for
a larger group of people? For example, in a
state of war, if declaring the true position of
a nation is bound to weaken their position
and bring about defeat by the enemy, and
consequently suffering of a greater number
of people, is the communication office
duty bound to nevertheless go ahead and
issue a statement with the facts regardless
of the expected outcome?
modern day scholars alike. One of the
widely recognized and perhaps most
accepted is utilitarianism. According to
Bentham (1748-1832) Utilitarianism is
an approach to ethical thinking that is
based on the view that the rightness or
wrongness of any action is dependent
entirely on the outcomes that is achieved
from it. This means that neither the intent
behind the action nor the fundamental
rightness or wrongness of the action is an
issue, only the consequences. This is also
commonly referred to as consequential
ethics.
From an ethics perspective, this argument
presents a rather pragmatic approach
to ethical decision-making. In essence,
some kind of rational estimation of the
outcome is made and the action is taken
to maximize the greatest good (some
20 MAL27/18 ISSUE
scholars describe it as ‘happiness’) for
the greatest number of people. Of course,
in most people’s minds, this approach
often results in the assertion that the
end justifies the means, a position that is
indeed debatable and particularly where
ethics is concerned.
It would be contentious, for instance,
to justify certain ‘unethical actions’ that
in the practitioners view will result in a
‘greater good for a bigger group of people’;
as opposed to doing the ‘right’ thing.
This is a very common dilemma in many
practitioners’ lives; for instance, do you
tell a lie (perhaps not directly; but by not
telling the truth) to the public to avoid
adverse stakeholder reaction and therefore
save the credibility of an organization and
consequently salvage stakeholders from
suffering a financial loss? Is such action
This is indeed a debatable proposition;
and one least favored in practice for both
corporate and public service, in favor of
the common good.
Contingency
A third model known as contingency
(also known as situationist) ethics exists;
which is a combination of utilitarianism
and deontological approaches. This model
would seem most ideal for professionals
across the board as it gives a leeway for
decision making based on the situation
and not on absolute conditions and ideals.
Ethics and Codes of
Conduct
The fact that a code of ethical conduct exist
does not offer practitioners a checklist
of do’s and don’ts to base their everyday
practice on; rather, these regulations only
serve as guidelines and reference points
for practitioners. There are a lot of blurred
lines and it is the professional’s duty to
draw the line between what is ethical and
what is non-ethical; what is right and
what is wrong.
This is because PR decisions are as varied
as the client organizations and it would
be very hard to have a ‘one-size-fits all’
prescription for the different situations
that organizations face in their day to day
operations.
Decision making is therefore to a large
extent left to be guided by professional
knowledge and technical capability with
the assumption that the practitioner
possesses ethical competence and
credibility.
From its origins, many people perceive PR
Practitioners as ‘spin doctors’; employing
clever strategies to convince the public
that what is wrong is right. Public
relations practitioners have been seen as
manipulators of the public mind, rather
than conveyors of truth.
In the current day operating environment,
some fundamental ethical questions in
regard to Public Relations, and indeed all
professionals can therefore be advanced;
should professionals take on clients
of questionable ethics? Is the primary
accountability of Professionals to the
public or to the client/organization?
Just as many other professional
associations uphold specific codes of
conduct, Public Relations practitioners
worldwide too have certain codes, with
certain underlying messages, key among
them being that they must adhere to
impeccable standards of professional
ethics, upholding truth at all times in
their communication to their publics.
However, despite the existence of these
codes of conduct for practitioners across
the globe, ethical conduct in practice
really comes down to the individual and
their value system; therefore, to a great
extent, the choice of whether to be ethical
or not cannot be regulated nor guaranteed
by any professional body but rather by
the individuals’ value system. Professional
codes of conduct can only act as guidelines.
From its origins, many people perceive
PR Practitioners as ‘spin doctors’; em-
ploying clever strategies to convince
the public that what is wrong is right.
Public relations practitioners have been
seen as manipulators of the public mind,
rather than conveyors of truth
Ethics in practice
Ethical practice in many professions
can be said to be ‘easier said than done’.
Global corporations have come crumbling
down or faced serious existential threats
in the face of non-ethical practices and
wrong handling of the attendant issues.
What is the role of the professional when
a corporate employs non-ethical practices
to the detriment of shareholders?
The infamous Enron Scandal of 2001,
where company executives used accounting
loopholes and poor financial reporting to
conceal losses from the public is a classic
example of what non-ethical practice
can result in. Much as this scandal was
engineered by the Finance people and
Audit firm, Investor Relations is a key
component of corporate communication
and therefore the PR professionals
were equally responsible for the ethical
dilemma and eventual bankruptcy of the
firm.
It comes down to
Reputation
Ethical practice has a direct implication
on the reputation of every institution.
Reputation has a direct and major impact
on the well-being of every organization,
be it a Government Department,
multinational, a charity or a small
business. That is why the professionalism
of those people who guard and mould
reputation - communicators and public
relations practitioners - is so important.
It is very worrying that public relations
has become such a mistrusted profession
in modern day times. As CBS Legal
Analyst and commentator Andrew Cohen
once put it ‘Show me a PR person who
is accurate and truthful and I’ll show
you a PR person who is unemployed’.
The incessant reference to the largely
questionable presidency of Donald
Trump as a ‘PR President’ doesn’t help the
profession’s cause either.
Regrettably,
the
public
relations
practitioner has more often than not been
equated to a propagandist rather than a
promoter of excellence in communication.
A former prime minister of the United
Kingdom Sir. Winston Churchill once
remarked that in wartime, truth is so
precious that she should be attended by
a bodyguard of lies (1943); this was at the
epitome of war propaganda.
Over the decades, however, the value
of ethical PR practices has been cast to
the forefront. Ethics in PR is immensely
critical
in
contributing
towards
effectiveness as a management function; as
key in counseling top management on the
right course of action and the importance
of upholding ethics in business operations
and communication.
In business, ethics is key in developing
credibility, organizational reputation and
good relations with stakeholders. It is the
bedrock upon which the success of the
business rests.
Irene Mbonge is a Communications
Expert and a current affairs
enthusiast. She is the interim Chair,
CIPR-Kenya chapter. You can
commune with her on this or related
issues via mail at: Mbonge.Irene@
gmail.com.