Only The Truly Ethical Can Act Ethical!

Acting ethical is far from being ethical, to be truly ethical suggests a genuine concern for how actions affect others despite the consequences that it may have on a personal level. Many ethical actions are taken for another reason... The Bottom Line... more commonly known as profit or money!

There are companies popping up everywhere employing Corporate Social Responsibility, their motivations in many cases are suspect to say the least but then faceless corporations and conglomerates are often regarded with disdain. However, the fact of the matter is that ethics are profitable in contemporary markets which have resulted in an ‘enlightened self-interest’ which Baker (The Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 1999) defines on the assumption that ‘one serves one’s self-interest by ethical behaviour’ as ‘businesses do well (financially) by doing good (ethically).’

One company arguably reaping the benefits of CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) could be the massive corporation that is McDonald's, who have introduced organic milk, rainforest alliance certified coffee and free-range eggs among others! This is not an isolated case and is aimed to ease the consciences of new and existing consumers who are becoming more and more aware of our collective social responsibility in regards of the sourcing of consumables. With McDonald's themselves stating that ‘British consumers are increasingly interested in the quality, sourcing and ethics of the food and drink they buy’ (Ashbridge, 2007)it is clear that it is consumer needs that have driven them towards this move, arguably not because they want to make the world a better place.

But is that necessarily a bad thing? Is it unethical to make a company look to be ethical when fundamentally it’s a capitalist giant who has one main objective, to make money? Does it matter that the meals are often sensationally calorific or that they still offer such meals to children, specifically targeting them with toys and the such, when they are doing their bit to help cows and chickens be happier? Now in their defence they do offer healthy alternatives despite still typically being ‘accused by health campaigners in America and Europe of helping to cause an obesity epidemic’ (Walsh, 2006), ranking as the least ethical of high-profile corporations according to a public opinion poll. But then while the laying chickens may be free ranging until their hearts are content, the meat chickens aren’t afforded exactly the same courtesy... suppliers do have to meet ‘strict animal welfare standards’ (McDonald’s, 2010), what that entails is not exactly clear, but the words free-range do not appear. This could be a sly tactic to get McDonald’s associated with free-range, encouraging transference of this impression of high standards of welfare onto other products such as chicken, without actually having to make the full financial commitment.

But what I now have to ask is this, is that any different to me buying free-range eggs and not free-range chicken? I buy free-range eggs to make me feel better about my selfish consumerism, after all who are we to say chickens are there to be manipulated for our own gain be it meat or eggs? We have taken it upon ourselves as humans to declare ourselves this master race so surely the least we could do is farm the animals we eat respectfully and with as much kindness as is possible given you’re going to slaughter them. We aren’t much different from those faceless corporation and conglomerates; fundamentally we all act selfishly without concern for what we are taking from the world and how we treat it with our main concern being our own back pockets. Perhaps we have huge issues with such companies because we see part of ourselves, in them, that we hate.

Regardless, ultimately no corporation can continue without the support of consumers and so who is to blame if not us? If you’re not happy with the way someone is acting then its simple, don’t support them by consuming their products. And don’t whinge when they don’t listen to you while you continue to do so!

So in conclusion, yes of course the ethics are, perhaps, suspect... but is it unethical to try and represent yourself as ethical when you’re not? It must be is socially acceptable at least, as it is practiced across society by individuals, groups and companies alike. An in our society majority rule, so I certainly wouldn’t lose sleep from doing so.

Public Relations: Ethics and Truth Mutually Exclusive?

PR seems to have an inherent association with unethical practice with many believing that ‘the term public relations ethics is an oxymoron: either an unreal possibility, or smoke and mirrors to hide deception’ (Bowen, 2007). But in reality is this association so wrong? How can Public Relations practitioners represent their clients in the best possible light while always remaining wholly ethical?

Firstly it might be prudent to define what is meant by ethical practice, according to the Public Relations Society of America their core principal when it comes to ethical practice is 'protecting and advancing the free flow of accurate and truthful information' as it is 'essential to serving the public interest and contributing to informed decision making in a democratic society' (PRSA, 2010). But this is not shared by all, and certainly it could be considered as difficult to practice Public Relations under that remit, with the creative management of communication being a key tool in representing clients...

Let us take for example the government in 2001 on September 11^th 2001. In this instance Jo Moore, a labour aide, sent this memo (after the attacks on the world trade towers but before they had actually collapsed) to her press office;

‘It is now a very good day to get out anything we want to bury. Councillors expenses?’

Moore actions sparked an out-roar which clearly condemned her actions as unethical, but the only reason that the information was brought to light was because the original memo was leaked to the press and subsequently the public (Sparrow, 2001). Clearly she was trying to obstruct the ‘free flow of accurate and truthful information' as there can be no doubt of the intent of her words, but the question then has to be asked whether he mistake was the act of ‘burying’ the information or getting caught!?

It is fact that the announcement in regards to pension rights for councillors remained in the main unnoticed, and so in a sense it was successful. Had she been perhaps more tactful, by simply requesting the information to be released, how could anyone prove that she had done so in direct response to the catastrophic events unfolding at the time?

Of course either way the intention makes the act unethical, but when it comes to success and acting responsibly it isn’t the ethics that you uphold that matter, it is the way in which your ethics are represented and perceived that does. After all you don’t have to be ethical to act ethical, do you?

Here I am, a fish out of the water

Here I go, making the leap from familiarity and comfort into the unknown that is the scary world of Public Relations...