PR needs a totally new focus; ethical codes and guidelines are insufficient

By Ana Adi and Thomas Stoeckle: 

Where PR is coming from and how it looks today

Public relations as a profession might be merely 100 years old yet the business of persuasion is as old as humankind. The preoccupation with communication, its purpose and its impact go as far back. In ancient Greece, Aristotle spoke of the modes of persuasion: Ethos refers to the credibility of the speaker, pathos to the emotional connection with the audience, and logos to the logical argument being made (he also spoke of kairos, the timeliness of an argument; of topos, the right theme or style; and of telos, the noble purpose). These concepts continue to apply. Aristotle’s teacher, Plato, was more concerned with the ethics of persuasion, a reaction caused by the increasing popularity of Sophism, where public speaking and the art of the argument (intellectual sparing for the fun of the debate) were preferred over truth. To a degree, our debates about PR ethics today are in essence very similar with the debates of Ancient Greece, and some scholars see the Sophists as the first peddlers of post-truths. 

Current understandings of PR/Comms’ core skillset often point to one’s ability to argue either side. These are what James Grunig calls “pragmatists” (2014). He also identifies people who can argue either side but choose one in particular – the “conservatives” supporting the economically and politically powerful, and the “radicals”, who “represent organizations that want change in society“. In this sense, neither Bell Pottinger with their advising on how the Guptas could get dirt on their political opponents or Ross Gow of Acuity Reputation advising Jeffrey Epstein how to discredit a witness is wrong. They were just doing their job. Following the same argument, communicators supporting partisan issues are also merely doing their job. Their success is shown in the level of visibility, support, and recognition they can muster for their causes. 

Judged by this principle of serving a master or cause, irrespective of ethical qualms, the examples above are just as successful and impactful as Dove’s sustained efforts to boost self-esteem and body confidence among young girls and women, Procter & Gamble’s challenge of gender stereotypes with campaigns like #likeagirl and “The best men can be” and Ikea’s stance to encourage people to stay home during the pandemic. 

Issuing codes of ethics, and ethical principles such as Pillars of Public Relations Ethics which include veracity (telling the truth), non-maleficence (doing no harm), beneficence (doing good), confidentiality (respecting privacy), and fairness – do not seem to deter pragmatists, conservatives or rebels from continuing their work. 

That leaves what Grunig (2014) calls the “idealistic social role (that…) presupposes that public relations serves the interests of publics as well as organizational interests, contributes to informed debate about issues in society, and facilitates a dialogue between organizations and their publics. Whereas the radical social role sees public relations as a way of directing social change in ways it prefers, the idealistic world view sees society as emerging from dialogue and the resolution of conflict between groups in society“. 

Interestingly, Grunig’s idealists are pointing to a paradigmatic change within PR/Comms: postmodernism – a change in world view and understanding of one’s role where communicators are increasingly concerned with voice, representation, and power.  

And yet, neither of these typologies solves our current conundrums. In a multistakeholder environment where any entity needs to navigate multiple, simultaneous and potentially conflicting demands, there are no easy solutions. Moreover, one’s satisfactory solution might be someone else’s disaster. Welcome to the superwicked world! 

So, what are communicators contributing to this world? What will their legacy be? 

What should PR be and do? 

In metamodern perspective, beyond objective modern certainty and subjective postmodern skepticism, PR/Comms should acknowledge and embrace the complexity it is operating in and abandon the quest for simple, black and white solutions.

In this sense, PR ought to be humble, diverse, empathetic, respectful, and tolerant of socio-cultural differences. In our view, PR should see itself as a social function (not an organizational one) whose role is to bring actors together in an open respectful deliberate discourse about the grand challenges societies are facing.

In our chapter in Pompper et al. (2023), we plea in favour of a change of both perspective and approach to PR: from client centric to stakeholder-centric, from organizational success to social contribution, from short term to long term, from speaking to listening, from defender of reputations to responsible persuader. This last bit, in our view, should come with strings attached: accountability – that is duties and responsibilities, incentives and penalties, arbitration. Yet this path is still unchartered. There are some examples of good practice but they come with caveats. Germany’s PR Council is made up of  academics debating cases with ethical implications for the practice. Practitioner voices are often missing. Nigeria’s legislation and compulsory registration to the National PR Association is an interesting example of having an overview of PR/Comms professionals with many interpretations to the job, yet the enforcing mechanisms seem to suffer. 

What can we realistically achieve

Until we get to the point where PR is seen as a social function, there are a few things that can be done. These include:

• persuasion literacies (not only media) in schools and beyond 
• rotation of functions in organizations 
• extended on-boarding for PR/Comms people featuring rotations or period of being embedded in different departments 
• reflective practice  
• a more diverse PR workforce 
• a change in reward system with a focus on social cohesion and perhaps wellbeing
• a change in definition of success with stronger emphasis on social impact (as in social change) and social value (what the change actually means to those affected and others)

References: 

Adi, A. and Stoecke, T., 2023. Public Relations as Responsible Persuasion: Activism and Social Change. In: Pompper, D., Place, K. R. and Weaver, N., eds. The Routledge Companion to Public Relations. London and New York: Routledge, 302-314.

Grunig, J. E. (2014). Ethics problems and theories in public relations. Introduction. Communiquer. Revue de communication sociale et publique, (11), 1-14.

+++

Dr. Ana Adi is a PR professor, strategic thinker, and global communicator who challenges assumptions to make PR more accountable, reflective, and future-ready. Passionate about culture, languages, and the intersection of ethics, strategy, and technology, she explores how communication shapes industries, societies, and the stories we tell—all fueled by curiosity and a strong cup of coffee.

Thomas Stoeckle is a recovering business executive in the communication intelligence and consultancy space. Forever curious, critical and sceptical, late-blooming academic. Deep interest in the history, present and future of public communication.

Written by: Editor