German Experiences with Codes and their Enforcement
- 22 Ianuarie 2009 |
- Dr. Horst Avenarius
Abstract:
Compared with the various systems of self-control for public relations practitioners published so far in this JOURNAL (v. Vol. 8, No 1 / 2003), the German concepts and regulations differ in some respect. The paper first describes the structure, the tasks and the procedures of the German Council on Public Relations. It outlines some peculiarities: This council censures not only members of the supporting associations but non-members and non-PR-professionals as well. It acts publicly. It pronounces and publishes verdicts and rebukes, and publishes dissenting opinions to the judgements of its majority, too.
Second, the paper deals with the problem how codes and guidelines are conceived. It explains the differences which German practitioners discern between moral and quality provisions and that they therefore have mental reservations with some proposals of the newly formulated “Global Protocol on Ethics in Public Relations”. In this context the paper outlines the moral principles which guide the Council’s legislative endeavours.
Third, the paper reports about various reactions of those who were rebuked and it analyses the echos of its decisions in the press. It gives a short evaluation of the Council’s influence on the practice of PR in Germany and discusses the question of the Council’s legitimacy. The German experiences with the enforcement of codes are summarized as an ongoing process of self assurance of the PR guild and its public esteem.
German Experiences with Codes and their Enforcement
1. Development and responsibilities of voluntary self-regulations in Germany
All communication is vulnerable to dishonesty. Should the legislator intervene in such cases? To avoid all kind of state interferences, two institutions were created in the early post war Germany to support the voluntary self-regulation of the communicators’ work: the Press and the Advertising Councils. The Public Relations Council deviated from this pattern. It was only founded in 1987 as the last of the three larger institutions, and it was established because of the notoriously bad reputation of the PR guild. However, today, even the Press Council claims the protection of the reputation of the press as an important reason for its existence.
German councils monitor compliance with moral standards. They are supported by professional associations and, depending on their respective composition, this results in some peculiarities:
* The Press Council is supported by associations representing print journalists and publishers. Therefore, it may only deal with complaints about the print media and not about television. The topics the councils of German television companies deal with are only vaguely related with moral self-regulations. “In Germany, the main problem is that ethical self-regulations on TV and on the Internet hardly exist,” wrote the German Press Council in its yearbook 2001 (Deutscher Presserat 2001:26).
* The Advertising Council (Deutscher Werberat) is supported by 41 economy associations representing advertising agencies, advertising companies, advertising professions, and advertising research. Therefore, it may only deal with commercial, but not with political advertising and campaigning.
* The German Council for Public Relations (DRPR) doesn’t have such structural restrictions. It is promoted by three associations: the German Society for Public Relations (DPRG) - the professional association of PR experts - , the Federal Association of Press Officers (BdP), and the Society of Public Relations Agencies (GPRA), a trade association. These three associations deal with all sorts of PR in all types of organizations. Therefore the PR Council can address all persons and organizations exerting influence on the public.
Consequently the PR Council monitors companies, unions, foundations, non-governmental organizations, political parties, the government and its authorities, also the press itself – as far as it does its own PR work. Some of these organizations employ their own PR experts; in others the management does every PR itself. They would be summoned before the Council no matter how professional they may be. The very first public rebuke the Council had to pronounce was addressed to the head of the supervisory board of a large German company. He had personally paid a large amount of money to a journalist for his interview with the magazine DER SPIEGEL in 1995.
The Council also deals with all forms of PR activity, even if their practitioners are organized in specific professional associations: press contacts and Public Affairs, lobbying and advertising assignments, crisis PR and PR campaigning, product placement and sponsoring. The Council also evaluates a defendant’s omissions, his concealments and the consequences resulting from non-communication.
It may be added that the Council, as a matter of principle, evaluates only the behaviour of organizations and not the actions of individual persons inside an accused organization. The above mentioned case of the head of the supervisory board was exceptional because he acted not on behalf of his company. It cannot be the task of the Council to identify individual responsibilities within a group. It has no legal power to detect either the possibilities of autonomous behaviour or the obligation to follow strict orders. Therefore it cannot be detected neither if such an action was done by a member of the DPRG or not.
The fact that accused parties do not have to be members of one of the promoting organizations to be brought before the Council has sometimes led to protests from those concerned. Would they be calmed down with a reference to principle no. 3 of the Council's statutes which says: "The PR Council will also deal with criticized PR events which were provoked or initiated by non-members of the promoting organizations and non-experts"?
This statuary statement is owed to the value system in our society: Anyone who expresses himself in public – or neglects to do so despite a moral obligation – subjects himself to universally accepted moral rules. Their implementation has been consistently promoted over several decades by self-regulatory bodies of the professional organizations responsible for communication activities. The responsibility of these councils can therefore be regarded as socially accepted.
2. Transparency of Council procedures
By acting on behalf of a global public relations responsibility towards publics the PR Council rises very high expectations. They can only be realized if the Council acts openly; if it allows publics to follow its proceedings and its reflections. Consequently, transparency characterizes the work of the Council itself.
“As a basic principle, the PR Council acts publicly, as objectionable PR behaviour also takes place vis-a -vis the public. Its judgements are normally published,” so it says succinctly in principle no. 7 of its statutes. In the case of incidents which are already publicly discussed, the charges are therefore published and the names of the accused quoted. If the final verdicts are not adopted unanimously but found with deviating votes, such “dissenting opinions” are published at length, too.
The PR Council even goes some steps further. It is transparent also as far as the investigations are concerned which precede its verdicts (see the corresponding section “Spruchpraxis” on www.drpr-online.de). Thus the Council once published its oral investigations and reported in detail about the arguments put forward by the representative of a company accused of a media boycott. Journalists who later did some research about a similar case, could consequently get informed about a comparable boycott on the Council’s website.
In addition to these forms of transparency, new demands were recently pronounced. In March 2004 an “Association for the Promotion of self-control e. V.“ was founded by well-known German communication scholars. Their association expects a general transparency of all proceedings of a Council; not only its research and its investigations, but its internal deliberations as well.
This proposal was strictly rejected by the German Press Council. In its annual report about the year 2003 the Press Council insisted on keeping the deliberations private, justifying its stance with the similar procedures of all German civil courts. German civil courts try their cases in public, deliberate in private and deliver their judgements in public. The German Press Council added that it admits claimants and opponents to the proceedings. It said however, that in most cases the Press Council deals with written petitions by the attorneys of the accused or by consumer councils. But such trials have never been published.
In contrast, the Council for Public Relations publishes much more details about its trials than the other councils. But it will equally not admit observers to its internal deliberations. Such brainstorming sessions can only function if participants can be sure of not being quoted with every remark they make.
The PR Council consists of sixteen members. Each of the three supporting associations delegates four representatives. They are the presidents of these associations and, in addition, three assessors elected by the general meetings for three years. The Council may co-opt several advisors with full voting rights. It has always used this option to assure itself of the experience of a university professor, a lawyer and one or two senior PR experts. Constituted in this way, the Council elects a chairman and two vice chairmen from its own ranks for a term of three years with the possibility of re-election.
If any of these members have personal or business connections with an accused party, they must declare a conflict of interest. They do not take part in the deliberations on this case, and are excluded from the decision-making process.
Some who have been censured tend to allege – mostly only belatedly - that the Council as a whole is institutionally biased. One called the rebuke he received the expression of a “self-righteous institutional professional jealousy” (Der Kontakter 38/2003: 14). The Council rejected this imputation publicly. Before discussing this case it had dealt with the question in detail as to whether Council members, who could be regarded as competitors, would have to be considered biased. This was denied. It was pointed out that professional self-regulation does not work if a possible competitive situation gives reason to a lack of impartiality. The essence of voluntary self-regulation is judging one’s peers. This applies to all comparable institutions.
3. Sanctions, penalties, and the reactions of the censured
Many discussions and comments on the function of councils end with sceptical, if not even derogatory questions on their ability to impose sanctions. This is the most discouraging part of the discussion. The term “sanctions” generally leads us to expect painful penalties as they occur in normal legal proceedings: the payment of fines, revocation of benefits or imprisonment.
In contrast, what effect could verbal rebukes have? People, so it is said, are just laughing about mere patter. And indeed, these are the reactions of some of those who are censured: thus, the rebuked head of an agency once remarked in a research interview done by a university student that he had become known just because of the rebuke. “This has caused a stir. I received an increasing number of inquiries” (Braun 2000: 72). Another, quite well known head of an agency reacted in a similar eccentric way. After a rebuke he told the media that he would be laughing about it: “I don’t care. And my staff doesn’t care either. They are dying of laughter.” By the way, the German news magazine FOCUS has merely published this statement – “as sound bite of the week” (FOCUS 16.09.02: 176).
It may have been this kind of bad experiences that motivated the American colleagues to abolish any sort of punishment. In an official letter introducing the new PR Code in 2001 Robert D. Frause, the Chairman of the Board of Ethics and Professional Standards (BEPS) of the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) stated as a first of “three powerfully important differences” to the previous code: “First: Emphasis on enforcement of the Code has been eliminated. But, the PRSA Board of Directors retains the right to bar from membership or expel from the Society any individual who has been or is sanctioned by a government agency or convicted in a court of law of an action that is in violation of this Code.”
The German PR Council abstains from dealing with charges which are simultaneously put on trial in a court of law. Persons who have been convicted in such a court may be expelled from their professional association. But “to bar from membership or expel from the Society” is no penalty that the German PR Council could impose, as it also passes judgements on defendants who are not members of any association. The announcement effect of a council’s rebuke consists of a temporary public call to order. It makes it possible to expunge a breach of the code; it gives a chance to those who are rebuked to return into the group of the spotless. Nobody should be regarded as a sinner forever.
Nevertheless some of those rebuked by the Council experienced a hard time later on. The once laughing head of an agency lost several contracts and finally his agency, and this development was partially due to the public ostracism after his trial. This fate was not intended by the Council; so far it happened only once, but it may work as a general warning of ultimate consequences.
To avoid a rebuke one PR agency threatened to take the Council members to court accusing them to damage its reputation. Such a reaction, which had no intimidating effect on the Council, shows how powerful the weapon of public censure has become since.
Therefore the German PR Council shall continue with its penal system. And there are favourable reactions, too, which have been registered after the announcement of rebukes: A high ranking manager in the marketing of sporting rights remarked vis-a -vis the PR-REPORT: “It was a shock for every one in charge. It’s true, that in due course everybody got over it. However, nobody wants to make another mistake and prefers to keep a low profile” (PR-REPORT 2.6.00: 8). This statement came from a person that was not member of any of the three associations that support the Council.
The PR Council differentiates between acquittals, warnings and rebukes. Warnings are pronounced and published, if the circumstances of the case do not suffice for a rebuke, or if the accused organization corrects its behaviour after the admonition by the Council. These warnings are addressed to all organizations, which, due to their structure, may be inclined to a behaviour comparable to this incident.
4. Quality and moral standards: The Council’s criteria
Giving its verdict the PR Council adheres, above all, to the codes of its own profession. There are two international codes: the Code d’Athenes - a moral code – and the Code of Lisbon – a code of conduct. At national level, there are the Seven Self-commitments of a PR practitioner plus several guidelines.
With respect to these texts one critic once pointedly remarked, " PR people virtually enjoy a free choice between diverse, sometimes internationally vagrant sets of ethics" (Baum 2005: 322). But the provisions of the described regulations are widely consistent. Some of the texts are based on each other. In some cases, they are supplemented. In some cases, they apply in detail to specific PR activities such as press work, product placement or public affairs.
An example of the described intertwining of texts is the Code of Conduct of the ECC Group, adopted in 2001. In this code the KohtesKlewes PR agencies expressly determined that the existing codes of their own profession and the Bordeaux code of ethics for journalists were part of their own moral identity. Their code “was compulsorily recognized by the partners and managers as well as each individual employee. All employees of the Group are aware that infringements of this code of conduct can have disciplinary consequences up to termination of employment."
In principle, the PR Council even observes "the professional codes and guidelines of other communication associations and institutions", as stated in its statutes. Once it published a compilation of all texts that could be relevant to German communicators in respect of their global contacts ("The Ethical Standards for PR Practitioners ", Avenarius 1998). In addition to the three codes mentioned above, this publication also included the Austrian and North American codes, as well as the international Code de Bordeaux for Journalists, the German Press Code together with its guidelines, the European Charta for Consumer Relations, the guidelines of the German Advertising Council, the ephemeral Code of Ethics of the Association of German Communication Scientists and extracts of the European Television Directive, of the German broadcasting directives, and even of Communio et Progessio, the pastoral instruction of the Catholic Church from 1971.
The council discerns some differences between moral codes and codes of conduct. Moral codes – generally designated as codes of ethics - govern interpersonal relations. Therefore, they must be universally applicable “in the light of the sacred character of Man” (Matrat 1986: 17). The Code d’Athenes, drawn up by Lucien Matrat, is ought to be applied worldwide. It is based on the “ethical principles” of public relations, referring to the Declaration of Human Rights. They are about the dignity of man and the respect, which hence forward must be paid to him.
Codes of conduct such as the European Code of Lisbon of 1978 are concerned not with the dignity of the individual but with the specific behaviour standards of the PR profession vis-a -vis principals and employers, vis-a -vis the media and publics and the own profession. Such behaviour codes are important complements to the moral codes with their more fundamental proclamations. They are not fixed for eternity but can adapt to new developments from time to time and thus be changed, as they correspond to the customs and traditions of the respective countries.
Thus, for example, one of the provisions of the Code of Lisbon was amended in 2001: Paragraph 11 which prohibited the honouring of PR professionals depending on success was abolished throughout Europe on the suggestion of the German PR Council. This suggestion was made to the European national associations after long and intense discussions in PR media and after a hearing in Bonn organized by the Council and in the course of which the arguments of the advocates and opponents of a deletion were heard.
Some codes of conduct contain sentences which basically serve to improve one’s reputation, such as: to be competent, to expand one’s knowledge continuously and to adhere to generally accepted standards of good taste. The council does not regard such provisions as moral standards.
Moral principles, in contrast to practical rules of conduct, can be a highly tough nut to crack: “Thou shall not lie” would be an example for this. Whereas “the mastery of particular intellectual skill through education and training” or the pledge “to conduct ourselves professionally”, “to improve our individual competence”, to advance “knowledge and proficiency”, all singled out from the “Global Protocol on Ethics in Public Relations” (Skinner 2003: 18), are recipes for success. They are reasonable behaviour patterns, partly stemming from contract principles and partly from educational curriculum. Ethically, however, they are rather irrelevant. The most professional and most successful is not always the most irreproachable.
It is an honour for every profession if quality standards are observed and efficiency standards are matched by its individual representatives. How this can be achieved belongs to the primary strategic tasks of any professional organization. However, the moral aspects must be separated from it. This is, admittedly, not easy for PR professionals. Thus, the former ethic committee of the German DPRG was pooled with its strategy committee for two legislative periods (1991-1997). Ethics became a part of association-related strategic considerations.
Even in handbooks of the PR guild, chapters on the ethics of public relations, if they existed at all, were in the context of profession-related strategic considerations. In 1984, James Grunig and Todd Hunt for example treated the “Codes of professional ethics” in the chapter on “Professionalism in Public Relations” (Grunig/Hunt 1984: 72). It is not until their new edition that they plan an independent and comprehensive chapter on “Ethics and Social Responsibility”. They also want to place this chapter at the beginning of their handbook “to emphasize the crucial role of ethics and social responsibility in public relations and its contribution to management decision making” as it is said in the manuscript which has not been printed yet.
5. How rules are devised
The quoted examples raise the question of how to create professional moral rules. Many professions have formulated their specific moral principles. Normally, this is done through their associations. Their members link different expectations to these texts. Some will look for ethical standards for their profession, others for quality assuring standards as described above, and some want to combine both aims. Duties and recipes for success are thus mixed.
The German Society of Public Relations founded an ethics commission in 1988. Its task was to revise in depth the existing regulations, especially as the PR codes had been harshly criticised in those days as being too abstract, too unspecific, hardly meaningful and unsystematic (Bentele 1992: 159). As a result of its deliberations, the commission issued the “seven self-commitments” of a member of the German Society of Public Relations (DPRG) in 1991, later on extended to every person that exercises PR, be it a professional or not. Before formulating these commitments, the commission had discussed the premises subject to which it wanted to determine the ethical standards for the profession.
First, it dismissed the integration of quality standards into ethical standards.
Second, it declined the often-demanded “shift in paradigms” from publicity to dialogue as the only correct and morally sound way of communication. It recommended “an ethic for everyday life” and for all ways of communication.
Third, the ethics commission should not pay too much attention to so-called “descriptive ethics”. It would certainly be an advantage to find out via polls where the guild’s shoe pinches. Then, one would be easily inclined to ask instead of the question: what should be? the much more convenient question: how would we like it to be?
Forth, the commission did not want to tolerate in any case the reference to the wickedness of others and to allow exceptions due to general circumstances.
Therefore, the ethics commission of the DPRG formulated ethical principles which can apply to all PR practitioners at all levels of hierarchy and for all feasible PR “models”. Even the most sophisticated activities were reduced to very simple norms, and their number was restricted to seven. The text was passed under the author’s chairmanship in Gravenbruch near Frankfurt/Main on 16 January 1991. Later on it was adopted in the official DPRG papers as one of the ethic standards of the profession (see Appendix).
What happens, if there are no provisions for a particular misconduct? Is it admissible for the PR council to break new ground in this case? On the one hand, according to the well-known principle “nulla poena sine lege” the question would have to be denied. On the other hand, comments and judgements by the three German councils are frequently determined by the imponderables demanded by common decency. The councils sometimes refer to such criteria. The German Advertising Council, for example, regards “the current opinion on customs, manners and morals in society” as one of the “four central pillars” for its decisions. This includes, according to this Council, “not only people’s behaviour in public life but the way how reality is shown in the editorial parts of the media” (Deutscher Werberat 2003: 64).
However, common decency is sometimes a delicate criterion. It opens the floodgates to quite a few public resentments regarding unconventional ideas and projects. Such a general mood led to the verdict on the Benetton advertisement given by the Advertising Council. It got much popular approval. But no matter how up-to-date and predominant the Council’s opinion on common decency, manners and morals in society may have been, the German Federal Constitutional Court reversed the Advertising Council’s judgement. The judges considered the freedom of opinion of a company launching its advertisement with stirring photos as more important than a general decency (Avenarius 2001: 39).
6. Adapting standards through guidelines
The moral concept of PR work, on which the activities of the PR Council are based, may not rely only on venerable but vague texts and actual decency. A far better way than judging by moods is issuing specific rules of conduct in the case of uncertainties. This task of the PR Council and of the two other Councils as well, is even growing in scale. Moral standards have to be developed in line with the development of communication techniques. Such guidelines are of the same binding effect as the codes.
Thus, for example, the PR Council issued a guideline about how to interact with journalists, dealing with gifts, invitations, and PR assignments; and this guideline corresponded to a guideline of the German Press Council about the acceptance of gifts and invitations by journalists.
Another example are guidelines for PR contacts with the political sphere. They were formulated in 2002, when the case Moritz Hunzinger caused a stir in the German public. The name of this PR man was linked to two affairs in which a former minister of defence and an ecologist member of the German parliament were involved. Both men had to resign. A cartoon of the German newspaper SZ showed a strange „seating“ of the Bundestag: the few independent members contrasted a huge number of lobbyists. The state seemed to be dominated by them, and the German PR guild appeared in an unfavourable light.
The case was taken to the German PR Council which – after detailed research and hearings – pronounced a public rebuke against Moritz Hunzinger. In the view of the council Mr. Hunzinger had caused considerable damage to the reputation of the PR profession. The Council based its evaluation on Clause 18 of the code of Lisbon: The PR practitioner must refrain from any conduct which may prejudice the reputation of his profession.
This clause could be applied to the effects of Mr. Hunzinger’s behaviour. But it could not be applied to his deeds. No article was applicable for Hunzinger’s behaviour itself. It could not be deduced from a precise rule what Hunzinger had actually violated. Prima vista it was hard to understand, why he should not be allowed to grant a small credit of 6000 E to a member of the parliament.
This gap has been closed by the new guideline on PR contacts with the political sphere. The prevision fixes explicitly and clearly in § 2.7: „Personal allowances granted to politicians are inadmissible. Allowances are all forms of financial benefits exceeding the refund of plausible expenses.“ And § 2.8 deals with material benefits in the form Mr. Hunzinger granted to the defense minister.
The new guideline on all PR contacts with the political sphere contains two high moral demands put on all persons involved in lobbying: first the absolute transparency of their contacts with politicians and civil servants; and second the resolute honesty in contact with politicians and civil servants. Honesty in this context stands for: no corruption and no intrigues.
7. The moral principles of PR work
As a consequence of the problems and experiences described above, all persons entrusted with the further development of moral guidelines are advised to look into the basics of communication ethics.
What are the moral principles of PR work? If this question is addressed to PR scientists, the answers are controversial. In Germany such principles were discussed for the first time scientifically in Munich in the spring of 1993. On the initiative of the Herbert Quandt Foundation, American and German scholars met there to discuss the “normative aspects of public relations”. These aspects were rather deceiving: we learned contradictory assessments of the current situation, many controversial issues but no single systematic presentation of communication ethics (see Armbrecht / Zabel 1994).
More recently one critique of the PR Council’s endeavours denied any fundamental moral principle applying to PR. He referred to their pursuing of special interests as contrary to a high moral standard (Baum 2005: passim). But who does not pursue his own interests? Almost everyone who addresses publics advocates special interests to a greater or lesser extent, deliberately or voluntarily.
Drawing moral distinctions between any form of PR in terms of their noble or mundane tasks, is therefore of little use to identifying moral principles. Should we refer instead to the American distinction between different forms of communication? “American research was eagerly absorbed in Germany in order to catch up with the international scientific community”, reported Winfrid Schultz at the 1st European Communication Conference in Amsterdam in November 2005 (Schultz 2006: 93).
James Grunig became the grand authority for German PR scholars. His four basic models of communication were largely adopted. Even his concept to ascribe to each of them distinctive moral values, was commonly approved. He considered three of these models – publicity, information activity and persuasion – as morally contestable. Only the symmetric two-way communication harboured the requisite respect for the communication partner and would thus be morally justified. Consequently PR practitioners attributed a high degree of significance to dialogues. They praised the two-way symmetrical model of communication in their official statements and interviews.
In their major trilogy on "Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management", James and Larissa Grunig finally made the remarkable attempt to represent this most moral of communication methods as the most effective, too. However, their evidence "that the two-way symmetrical model is both more ethical and more effective" (Grunig/Grunig 1992: 309) may only be of limited validity according to the reports they delivered to German audiences about their case studies. The authors found the use of the symmetrical model to be interspersed with asymmetrical findings; therefore they had researched more according to (noble) motives instead of (specific) actions, and consequently they used the Murphy formula of “mixed-motive models” to describe their findings (Grunig/Grunig/Dozier 1996: 201ff).
Presumably, this was the only possible outcome. A dialogue has its value; it improves the mutual understanding between counterparts. However, Vincent Hazleton was right when he stated at a conference of the Herbert Quandt Foundation that at the end of a dialogue, there are always two processes that are less communicative than commercial or political: "bargaining & negotiation" or "problem-solving" (Hazleton 1992: 42). We may add to his conclusion: There is a decision-making process that does not always end in the win/win zone of both dialogue partners. Power comes into play.
If dialogue, discourse or debate are the appropriate rules of our democracy – and their outcome is often a ballot, i.e. a power issue – then transparency is the lifeblood of our information society. Modern societies thrive on transparent information. In Germany three significant phenomena have marked the beginning of increased transparency. It started in the field of financial PR. Even if there are still some attempts at concealment in this sector, in most cases they cannot deceive the analysts’ eyes. Stock market activities demand transparency. Meanwhile this requirement has also spread to the non-financial business segments of companies listed on the stock exchange. Global Governance is the title for a couple of newly adopted provisions in this respect.
A second field in which PR professionals are urged to transparency are critical situations or catastrophes. Crisis-PR has become the field of reckless, even “most straight forward transparency without any reserves” as a German prime minister has recently promised. The same applies to the landscape of political parties, administrative authorities or the industry. Many will still be tempted to conceal grievances. But most of them will remember the old PR rule which says: “Whoever tells only half the truth will be confronted with the whole truth sooner or later and will then face a bigger problem.”
A third field in which PR professionals are and will be bound to transparency without any reservation is when they render account of historical events involving the past misconduct of an organisation. In particular, German enterprises had to learn a bitter lesson. It will no longer be possible to simply conceal one’s behaviour in connection with forced labour during World War II or the expropriation of Jewish possessions. If its own history is concerned the German PR people had to learn that witnesses for all past incidents may be found somewhere and that they will be able to contradict euphemistic self-portrayals at any time.
No form of dialogue can be distinguished in these three fields of PR activity. What is to be found is one-way information according to Grunig’s second model of PR: the public information. This model got under the ethical verdict of the American scholars, who mainly centred on the power and propaganda factor of public information for a long time: According to Cutlip/Center/Broom, organisations, above all, public agencies and authorities, benefit from being better informed and make use of this advantage to the detriment of those who are governed. As Cutlip/Center/Broom wrote in their handbook “Effective Public Relations” in Chapter 15: “Beyond these conflicts is the inevitable association of government information programs with the word propaganda” (Cutlip/Center/Broom 2000: 500).
A shift in the moral assessment of the four Grunig models therefore guidelines the judgements of the council. Its prevailing dictum is more or less: Everyone who provides information and thus creates transparency acts in a morally impeccable manner. And as far as our notorious “special interests” are concerned, the council adds: The credible, plausible and open representation of own interests is one of the stringent conditions for transparency. Honesty regarding own motives is as essential as truthfulness in respect of disclosed facts.
Everyone involved in PR work has to consider that particularly in difficult situations transparency presents a great moral challenge. In terms of a postulate, transparency belongs to the first of the seven self-commitments of PR practitioners. These sentences, which may be irritating due to their absoluteness, are as follows:
“With my work I serve the public. I am aware of the fact that I am not allowed to do anything that might lead the public to wrong conclusions and wrong behaviour. I have to be honest and truthful.”
This first of the seven self-commitments of PR practitioners is the supreme postulate of all those who address publics. Thus it is not merely a postulate for PR professionals. It emphasizes the right of target groups, of publics, of the societies at large to claim a transparent behaviour of everybody addressing them. This postulate substantiates the legitimacy of the verdicts of the council. It thereby answers the question “What entitles the Council to pronounce its verdicts?”
On the other hand, this postulate highlights the socio-political role of the PR profession going far beyond every concrete target of organisations. As doctors while curing individual patients are inherently serving the health of mankind, the legal profession by defending individual rights are serving the promotion of justice, and engineers by constructing concrete devices are serving the technical progress, so do those who exercise PR: by informing publics they are serving public transparency. PR serves the transparency of all essential correlations in an ever more complex world. This is what the society demands and expects from PR work in terms of moral behaviour.
8. Perspectives
Do Council proceedings, their statements and their references to codes, guidelines, and customs have a generally positive impact on the propriety of a profession? This is the somewhat mischievous question of whether the work of the Council has actually improved the morals of the PR industry. Anyone wanting to answer "yes" would be disabused of this notion fairly quickly by the next spectacular incident.
Moral codes, behavioural guidelines and judgements could provide guidance. Dean Kruckeberg of the University of Iowa once listed the practical advantages of a code (cf. Kruckeberg 1990: 29f.):
· A code can firstly be a guide to PR players in terms of their actions.
· Secondly, it can inform agency clients of what they should expect from their PR consultants and what they should not ask for.
· Thirdly, it provides an indication of the legitimacy of claims against PR people.
· Fourthly, it also provides the opportunity to make a defence against claims or accusations.
To meet the first requirement, code texts must be simple and repeatable. This is attained with the seven self-commitments for the German-speaking area. If they become accepted, the other requirements can also appear realistic. A recognized code, lived out many times, substantiated by published cases, with a text easily understood by non-experts, protects those who practice PR in the event of conflicts with clients or employers. Whether they belong to the profession or not, it gives them backup in the event of denials within organizations, which only in-house doctors and lawyers currently have in companies. What is more, anyone who is harmed by malicious PR knows to make specific mention of the misconduct of which they have been a victim.
All this is not reality, yet. It must also be asked what sort of high moral awareness is most pressing in an industry: knowledge of a list of transgressions or fear of a court.
The first supposition is that all depends on the level of knowledge of the regulations or even the reciting of individual contents. We are familiar with the scornful conclusion that some critics draw from scientific surveys: because no-one is familiar with their codes, the industry lacks moral judgement. However, who can reel off all Ten Commandments or the by no means extensive German Unfair Competition Act? And yet our normal everyday behaviour is measured by the former, and the respectability of the business community by the latter.
It is not necessary to know the regulations of the PR industry by heart in order to be guided by the standards that they represent. Even if these texts resulted from the experiences of those who wrote them, they are based on cast-iron, initially unwritten principles of sound communication. They have been followed or ignored – probably with a guilty conscience – ever since public relations came into existence.
Now, as the activities of public communicators are more widely and critically discussed in the press, reflection on communicative morals is gaining in profile. Writings on ethics of PR are filling the bookshelves. The range of lectures on this subject is becoming increasingly diverse. Indeed, greater attention is even being paid to surveys on the moral orientation of the industry.
The most recent one dates from the end of the last century. Birgit Förg analyzed 25 in-depth interviews with high-ranking German PR officers. The results paint a confusing picture. On the one hand, the author felt that "PR morals are only promoted externally for the purpose of image enhancement" (Förg 2004: 175). These findings suggest a certain absence of ethics. On the other hand, those questioned were surprisingly aware that "the level of recognition of the German PR codes should be increased" (160). Förg also stated that the PR Council "is widely accepted among most of my interviewees ". (165).
Since the above-mentioned Hunzinger affair in 2002, the PR industry has probably become gradually more aware of its problems. At the time, PR people were thoroughly discredited. "Don’t even tell my mother that I work in PR!" read the two-page banner headline in PR REPORT on 9th August, 2002. The cry for PR Council proceedings against the boss of this PR agency was heard nationwide.
Raising the level of recognition of the Council could therefore be sufficient to improve PR morals. This leads to our second supposition: Do PR morals improve if a large section of the public learns what authority there is to publicly denounce misconduct? The days when misconduct never led to punishment or denunciation were gone. The PR Council which led a shadowy existence in its first five years, has gained in attention and esteem of late. However, its effectiveness must be measured by two criteria: the number of complaints received and the number of cases completed.
The number of complaints is increasing significantly year by year, even though they are way behind the volume submitted to the Press and Advertising Councils (40 : 400). This is primarily because of the different structure of those who complain. With advertising, it is the general public, and with the press it is also a very large group of outraged readers. With PR, it can only be media communicators who feel conned, corrupted or deceived by the primary communicators, the PR people. However, journalists do not call on the PR Council if they have something to complain about; they write reports about it in their media. This is why the Council members pursue all the dubious events that they find about through press reports.
There is another handicap, as a result of which the Council is sometimes described as a toothless tiger that cannot bring itself to issue a decisive denunciation: Its council proceedings rarely have to do with palpable, clear misconduct. The Advertising and Press Councils can crack down on obvious communicative lapses and assess facts: defamatory advertisements, one-sided reports, malicious comments or propagandistic pictures. In contrast, in corruption cases, the PR Council is dealing with concealed actions; and in the event of threats and coercion, the instigators deny such motives. How can such misdeeds be uncovered without the submission of internal documents? The Council does not have any of the investigative powers of public prosecutors. Its scope of action is restricted. By necessity, many cases therefore end with no clear judgement.
"Sisyphus goes on!" was the headline of a respectful, balanced analysis of the Council's work in the WIRTSCHAFTSJOURNALIST journal of 04/2005. But Sisyphus doesn’t need press applause. It need press reports about its verdicts. The verdicts of the Council can only have a lasting effect, if noticed by the press, and if a rebuked is thus “pilloried”. As the negligent reaction of the German news magazine FOCUS shows, this is sometimes a problem.
A public ostracism of PR-wrongdoers will only come about if the quality of critical journalism on PR activities corresponds to that of other fields of journalism. A qualified, critical PR journalism, comparable to German media journalism, is required in the daily and weekly newspapers. However, the press will probably only take the judgement of the PR Council seriously when PR people themselves take it seriously. As long the PR industry only uses it for image enhancement, as described by Birgit Förg (see above), the press can hardly feel compelled to report continuously.
Sisyphus therefore continues his labours internally and externally, and at some point he certainly will manage to roll the rock over the hill. At least with respect to the forbidden practice of guaranteeing quantified results – v. article 10 of the Code of Lisbon – the continuous warnings and admonitions of the Council so far achieved an almost complete elimination of such a behaviour in present Germany. And time and again the threat of an advocate to take the council members to court shows that rebukes have become a hard penance for those concerned, and they normally try to avoid them. Only a few are really indifferent to it.
The German experiences with the enforcement of codes can be summarized as an ongoing process of self assurance of the PR guild and its public esteem.
Literature
Armbrecht, Wolfgang/Zabel, Ulf (Publishers) (1994): Normative Aspekte der Public Relations: Grundlegende Fragen und Perspektiven. Eine Einführung / Normative
Avenarius, Horst (2001): Benetton und die Folgen (Benetton and the Implications). In: Public Relations Forum 1 / 01. Pages 38 – 40.
Avenarius, Horst (1998): Die ethischen Normen der Public Relations. Kodizes, Richtlinien, freiwillige Selbstkontrolle ("The Ethical Standards for PR Practitioners" ). Neuwied: Luchterhand Verlag
Baum Baum, Achim (2005): Kommunikation unter Erfolgszwang. Über die Legitimitätsprobleme der Public Relations. In: Baum, Achim / Wolfgang R. Langenbucher / Horst Pöttker / Christian Schicha (Hrg.): Handbuch Medienselbstkontrolle. Wiesbaden; S. 319 - 327
Bentele, Günter (1992): Ethik der Public Relations als wissenschaftliche Herausforderung (Ethics of Public Relations as a Scientific Challenge). In: Avenarius, Horst/Abrecht, Wolfgang (Publisher): Ist Public Relations eine Wissenschaft (Is Public Relations a Science?) Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Pages 151 – 170.
Braun, Lisa (2000): Ethische Normen in den Public Relations am Beispiel der ärztlichen Öffentlichkeitsarbeit zur Gesundheitsreform 2000. Abschlussarbeit im weiterbildenden Studium Journalisten-Weiterbildung am Fachbereich Philosopie und Sozialwissenschaften der Freien Universität Berlin (Ethical Standards in Public Relations as an example for public relations in the Health Care Reform 2000. Final thesis in journalist further education in Philosophy and Social Sciences at Freie Universität Berlin).
Cutlip, Scott M./Center, Allan H./Broom, Glen M. (2000): Government and Politics. In: Cutlip, Scott M./Center, Allan H./Broom, Glen M.: Effective Public Relations. Upper Saddle River N.J.: Prentice Hall. Pages 487 – 517.
Deutscher Presserat / German Press Council (2001): Jahrbuch 2001 mit der Spruchpraxis des Jahres 2000 (Yearbook 2001 referring to the year 2000). Konstanz: UVK.
Deutscher Werberat / German Advertising Council (2003): Werbung in Deutschland 2003 (Advertising in Germany 2003). Bonn: edition ZAW.
Grunig, James E. / Grunig, Larissa A. (1992): Models of Public Relations and Communication. In: Grunig, James E.: Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Pages 285 – 325.
Grunig, James E./Grunig, Larissa A./Dozier, David M. (1996): Das situative Modell exzellenter Public Relations. Schlußfolgerungen aus einer internationalen Studie. In: Bentele, Günter/ Steinmann, Horst/ Zerfaß, Ansgar (Hrg.): Dialogorientierte Unternehmenskommunikation. Berlin.
Grunig James E. / Hunt, Todd (1984): Managing Public Relations. New York: CBS College Publishing.
Hazleton, Vincent (1992): Toward a Systems Theory of Public Relations. In: Avenarius, Horst / Armbrecht, Wolfgang (Publishers): Ist Public Relations eine Wissenschaft? (Is Public Relations a Science?) Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Pages 33 – 45.
Kruckeberg, Dean (1990): Questions of Ethics in Public Relations. In: International Public Relations Review, Volume 13, No. 2. Pages 26 – 33.
Matrat, Lucien (1986): Ethics and Doubts. In: International Public Relations Review, November 1986. Pages 17 – 20.
Schultz, Winfried (2006) : Communication research in the past half century. A personal account of what has been typical, striking, important, and deplorable in German-speaking countries. In: PUBLIZISTIK 1/2006: Pages 92 - 96
Skinner, Chris / Mersham, Gary / Valin, Jean (2003): Global protocol on ethics in public relations. In: Journal of Communication Management. Volume 8, No. 1 / 2003. Pages 13 -28
Appendix:
THE SEVEN SELF-COMMITMENTS OF A PR PRACTITIONER
1. By my work I serve the public interest. I am aware of the fact that I am not allowed to do anything that might lead the public to wrong conclusions and to wrong behaviour. I have to be honest and truthful.
2. With my work I serve my principal or employer. I commit myself to act as responsible advocate of his interests and to keep him from harm.
3. By my work I am involved in the activities of an organisation. I am faithful to the targets and the policy of the organisation which I represent, as long as these are in line with the dignity of man and his basic rights and the resulting laws and rights.
4. If I should work for an organisation which in communicating with the public fails to respect the dignity of men and fairness against other organisations, I will use my best endeavours to encourage them to correct this behaviour. If necessary, I will give back the assignment.
5. I will be honest and accurate in all communications to the best of my knowledge and belief. In communicating with journalists and other bodies assuming public responsibility I will not use any unfair means. I will not induce them to accept any kind of advantages.
6. I will respect the independence and freedom of my interlocutors. Therefore, I will not apply any instruments of power against them. Above all, I will refrain from any coercion.
7. I consider public relations work as a necessary assignment to create trust, public interest and to review one’s own behaviour. Therefore, I will not deliberately damage the reputation of my profession.
This text was adopted by the DPRG Ethics Commission on 16 January 1991 in Gravenbruch near Frankfurt/Main. In 1995, it was incorporated for the first time in the DPRG guidelines as one of ethical benchmarks of the PR profession.
(revised 20th April, 2006)
Horst Avenarius, PhD, is Chairman of the German Council for Public Relations since 1992. He was Vice-President of the German Society for Public Relations (DPRG) from 1988 to 1991 and member of its Ethic Commission. For almost two decades he served as head of corporate communication, PR, and Public Affairs of the BMW group. He wrote a handbook on PR (2nd ed. in 2000), some articles about moral cases, an essay on the ethics of communication and he published a commented collection of norms and codes for all communication professions.
Journal of Communication Management
Test reprodus cu acordul autorului.