Applying professional ethical standards in public relations and advertising, develop and post one approximately 700-word response to the above case. *Justify* your answer on the basis of y

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hmme21

Journal of Mass Media Ethics

ISSN: 0890-0523 (Print) 1532-7728 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmme20

From Enforcement to Education: The Development of PRSA's Member Code of Ethics 2000

Kathy R. Fitzpatrick

To cite this article: Kathy R. Fitzpatrick (2002) From Enforcement to Education: The Development of PRSA's Member Code of Ethics 2000, Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 17:2, 111-135, DOI: 10.1207/S15327728JMME1702_03

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327728JMME1702_03

Published online: 17 Nov 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 259

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

From Enforcement to Education: The Development of PRSA’s Member Code of Ethics 2000

Kathy R. Fitzpatrick DePaul University

� The Public Relations Society of America’s (PRSA) Member Code of Ethics 2000 assumes professional standing for PRSA members, emphasizes public relations’ ad- vocacy role, and stresses education rather than enforcement as key to improving in- dustry standards. Code development involved more than 2 years of research and writing and the counsel of outside ethics experts. In this article I review the code de- velopment process, providing an insider’s perspective on the ethics initiative.

Public Relations Society of America (PRSA or the Society) members marked the new millennium by adopting a new code of ethics approved by PRSA’s Assembly in October 2000 (see Appendix). The code, which re- placed standards of practice established half a century ago and revised several times since, reflects the Society’s desire to position PRSA as the eth- ics brand leader in the industry and to raise the ethical performance of public relations professionals (S. L. Waltz, Jr., personal communication, June 12, 2001).

PRSA’s newest code differs from its predecessors in three significant ways. The 2000 code assumes professional standing for PRSA members; it emphasizes public relations’ advocacy role; and it contains no enforcement provisions. In the words of code drafters, the code is aspirational and edu- cational, designed to motivate ethical behavior rather than punish ethical misbehavior (R. D. Frause, personal communication, June 11, 2000). The code also is a reflection of changing times and the increased expectations for professional responsibility in public relations.

This article traces the development of PRSA’s Member Code of Ethics 2000. It is based on research PRSA’s Board of Ethics and Professional Stan- dards (BEPS or Ethics Board) and the Ethics Resource Center (ERC) con- ducted; archival reports and correspondence related to PRSA’s codes of ethics; personal communication with BEPS members and BEPS legal coun- sel; and personal communication with selected current and former PRSA leaders. The work also records the observations of the author, who has

Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 17(2), 111–135 Copyright © 2002, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

been a member of PRSA’s Ethics Board for almost 6 years and participated in writing the 2000 code of ethics.

A New Code

Two primary factors influenced PRSA’s decision to write a new code of ethics: recognition that the existing standards were no longer sufficient for addressing contemporary issues and practices and the need to address growing concerns related to code enforcement (PRSA, 2000c; R. D. Frause, personal communication, June 11, 2001; S. D. Pisinski, personal communi- cation, July 2, 2001; and S. L. Waltz, Jr., personal communication, June 12, 2001). According to Robert Frause, BEPS chairman for 10 years and the leader of the code development process, the punitive nature of the existing code was a significant factor. “The existing code was no longer acceptable or appropriate because the focus was not on ethical public relations prac- tices. The focus was on whether someone committed a violation and whether he or she should be sanctioned” (R. D. Frause, personal communi- cation, June 11, 2001).

Of some additional significance was the perceived need to enhance the credibility of the public relations field. PRSA leaders were concerned about a 1998 study that found Americans ranked the public relations field last in credibility among 42 job categories or functions (ERC, 1999b). Although a new code of ethics alone could not change such perceptions, it could help raise the standard for ethical performance, according to PRSA leaders (S. L. Waltz, Jr., personal communication, June 12, 2001).

Serious discussions about code revision began in 1998, when the PRSA Ethics Board requested a formal meeting with the PRSA Board of Directors to address problems related to the PRSA Code of Professional Standards and Practices (last revised in 1988). As the group responsible for investigat- ing potential violations of the PRSA code, BEPS members were particu- larly concerned with enforcement matters. (For a detailed discussion on the problems related to PRSA code enforcement, see the preceding article in this issue of JMME, Fitzpatrick, 2002). Frause (personal communication, March 17, 1999) outlined their views in a memorandum to the PRSABoard:

Over the past three to six years the Board of Ethics and Professional Stan- dards has confronted what we believe is a serious change in attitudes of PR practitioners in general as well as PRSA members specifically, regarding ethi- cal practices and standards. What we have experienced is an eroding regard for PRSA’s Code of Ethics and Professional Standards. What used to be clear violations of the code now go unresolved due to numerous loopholes in the way the code is written, administered and supported by the organization’s

112 From Enforcement to Education

leadership and members as well. We believe the once dominant belief that PRSA’s ethics code had meaning and was strictly enforced is now defunct.

Our experience now reveals that members who are accused of ethical mis- conduct employ attorneys and legal counsel who make mincemeat of viola- tion accusations as they relate to our current code. BEPS’ limited powers to gather information make it even more difficult to discover the truth and take action. Pure and simple, our entire committee is frustrated, powerless and unable to do justice to the spirit of the PRSA Code of Ethics and Professional Standards. We believe it is time for all of us to roll up our sleeves and pursue a meaningful code of ethics and professional standards that will work for the Society now and in the years to come.

Convinced by BEPS that some action was needed, PRSA officials sched- uled a “Summit on Ethics” and contracted with the nonprofit ERC to un- dertake a preliminary study of the PRSA code and recommend improve- ments (R. D. Frause, personal communication, June 11, 2001). As part of its assessments, the ERC (1999b) interviewed leading public relations profes- sionals, held a focus group with 8 to 12 public relations professionals, and surveyed 300 public relations practitioners.

The [existing] code was outdated, incomplete, too

detailed, not clearly or cleanly written, operational rather than aspirational, too limited in terms of explanations, and provided

no positive incentives for compliance.

The ERC presented its report at the summit held in early 1999 during a regularly scheduled meeting of the PRSA Board of Directors. The research (ERC, 1999b) supported BEPS’s proposal for a new code. Most compelling was the preliminary finding that PRSA members believed that PRSA’s code was largely ineffective. At the same time, members were concerned that eliminating the enforcement provisions entirely would be a mistake. Several reasons—some contradictory—were cited for why the code was considered inadequate. According to the research participants, the code was outdated, incomplete, too detailed, not clearly or cleanly written, op- erational rather than aspirational, too limited in terms of explanations, and provided no positive incentives for compliance.

Concerns related to “spin,” business practices, and professionalism also were raised through the research (ERC, 1999b). One interviewee suggested

Fitzpatrick 113

that “in some ways, lying permeates everything we do” (p. 5). Participants also cited billing, human resources, conflicts of interest, and marketing is- sues as problematic.

The ERC (1999b) recommended that the PRSA code “be rewritten and its enforcement provisions revised as part of a larger campaign to position PRSA as the integrity leader in the public relations field” (p. 1). As part of the process, the ERC suggested a comprehensive assessment of issues that should be addressed in the new code and the development or enhance- ment of ethics expertise on the part of code drafters and PRSA staff who would support the new code.

The summit proved to be the turning point in PRSA’s decision to pro- ceed with a new code of ethics. Although PRSA leaders were hesitant to concede that code enforcement was not working, they recognized the need to update the existing code, and they agreed that ethics should be the hall- mark of PRSA membership (R. D. Frause, personal communication, June 11, 2001). BEPS and PRSA officials subsequently agreed that a new code of ethics—rather than simply a revision of the existing model—was needed to reflect the professional status and obligations of contemporary practitio- ners and to address the enforcement challenge.

Researching the Code

The code development process began with more research. Although members who had served on the Ethics Board for many years had some strong opinions regarding the type of code needed (i.e., one with less em- phasis on code enforcement and sanctions and more emphasis on inspira- tion and encouragement), they felt involving PRSA members in the pro- cess was important. According to Frause (personal communication, June 11, 2001),

Research confirmed what was intuitively known by BEPS’ members but not really known by the rest of PRSA leadership, staff and members. Research also helped legitimize the findings and build consensus for approval by the Assembly. It showed that BEPS had done its homework and that the recom- mendations were based on relevant information.

Early in the research process, Frause sent a memo to PRSA board mem- bers, chapter presidents, Assembly delegates, and section/district chairs requesting their participation in a national discussion about the PRSA code (ERC, 2000b). The correspondence posed questions directly related to the development of a new code, including code structure and format, as well as substantive issues the Ethics Board had encountered during years of code-related investigations.

114 From Enforcement to Education

The ERC (2000b) received 20 responses from PRSA leaders. Participants said that having a code was important for the profession and for the future of PRSA. They also supported a revised code, with most supporting en- forcement and suggesting that various degrees of punishment be used. Re- spondents also supported ethics education as an important reinforcement, noting that it was PRSA’s responsibility to educate, guide, and lead its members and nonmembers regarding ethical practices. Respondents said that PRSA members should be held responsible for the actions of non–PRSA members they supervise and should identify employers, cli- ents, and front groups.

Focus Group Findings

ERC representatives and PRSA Assembly delegates conducted focus groups at the October 1999 PRSA national conference. Approximately 240 PRSA members participated in 18 focus groups.

Focus group participants expressed strong support for revising the ex- isting code and for professional ethical practices, with many supporting the use of PRSA resources to review the code and increase the focus on eth- ics (ERC, 1999a). Education on ethics also was supported, but views dif- fered on the extent to which PRSA should commit resources for such ef- forts. Participants said that enforcement was desirable although it may not be practical. They also expressed some concern regarding the PRSA board’s authenticity in support of ethical issues.

… the most critical or central ethics-related issues in the public

relations industry involve truthfulness, the corruption of communication channels, and

competitive practices.

According to focus group participants, the most critical or central eth- ics-related issues in the public relations industry involve truthfulness, the corruption of communication channels, and competitive practices (ERC, 1999a). In addressing the ways in which dishonest business activities mani- festthemselvesinpublicrelations,participantscitedthefollowingconcerns:

Truthfulness in Business Activities

• “Spinning” a message in a manner that may distort the truth about an issue or product.

Fitzpatrick 115

• Clients who knowingly mischaracterize an issue or product to their public relations firms.

• Misrepresentation of a client. • Front groups that advocate the position of a particular organization

or issue without disclosing that they are doing so. • Billing a client as if work had been done by a senior staff person when

it was actually done by a junior staff person; padding of bills. • Conflicts of interest created by firms’ lack of disclosure regarding re-

lationships with client competitors or other conflicts.

Corruption of Communication Channels

• Paying for editorial coverage. • Sharing insider information. • Sharing confidential/proprietary information. • Advocating for a particular issue or product rather than dispensing

information. • Gift-giving or receiving in a way that creates undue influence. • Media practices that distort channels of communication.

Competitive Practices

• Competitive intelligence practices that border on espionage. • Intentionally damaging the reputation of a competitor or opposing

side. • Pressure from clients to bend rules, be unethical, or guarantee results. • Pressure from leadership to bend rules, be unethical, or guarantee

results. • Pressure from marketing to bend the truth, be unethical, or guarantee

the results.

In addressing the structure of a new code, focus group participants cited four features they found lacking in the existing code: clarity, simplicity, specificity, and teeth (ERC, 1999a). With regard to content, participants said the code should be “relevant” (p. 8). Commonly cited issues that should be addressed included the economics of ethics (i.e., the fact that tak- ing an ethical stand might mean losing a job); licensing or certifying public relations professionals; effective enforcement mechanisms; “globalism” (p. 8); Internet activities; disclosure and confidentiality; front groups; and dealings with the media.

Focus group participants indicated a range of ideas on how the Ethics Board should draft a new code. Some suggested that PRSA members should participate in the process; others cautioned against “writing by

116 From Enforcement to Education

committee” (ERC, 1999a, p. 8). With regard to code philosophy, most of the participants favored a positive approach focused on best practices rather than punishment. Commonly cited issues that should be addressed in- cluded whether members should sign a commitment on admission to PRSA, renewal of membership, or both; the role of judicial panels (PRSA bodies that decide cases involving alleged code violations); how to incor- porate ethics into the member accreditation process; and ways for PRSA to “brand” (p. 9) the code and make members, clients, and the public aware of its existence.

In its preliminary research, the ERC had found that although many PRSA members believed code enforcement would remain largely ineffec- tive without state licensing of practitioners, the enforcement “provisions were worth retaining, since eliminating them entirely would be a step in the wrong direction and would send the wrong signal to all public re- lations practitioners and others” (ERC, 1999b, p. 3). The focus groups seemed to support this finding, although participants were split in their views on whether enforcement was desirable, possible, or both (ERC, 1999a). Some thought a code “with teeth” (ERC, 1999a, p. 9) was the key to increased professional standing; others believed that even if enforcement were desirable it probably was not possible.

The ERC (1999a) found “no consensus and some disagreement” (p. 10) regarding the resources that PRSA should devote to ethics education and training. But “the simplicity of some [participants’] suggestions—men- tioning ethics in standard communications—is a real indication that PRSA is in the beginning stages of integrating ethics into its organizational fab- ric” (p. 10). Participants’ recommendations included ethics seminars and classes, affiliations with other organizations, the development of ethics re- sources (e.g., speaker’s bureau and case studies, code compliance mecha- nisms, external promotion of PRSA values, integration of ethics into PRSA materials, and encouragement for members to include the code in routine practices, such as including it as part of proposals and contracts).

Survey Results

Using data gathered from the focus groups and preliminary research, the ERC developed and administered a survey of PRSA members in Janu- ary 2000. The objectives were to gain additional insight into members’ views on PRSA’s mission, the organization’s leadership, the current code, and the ethical climate in their workplace (ERC, 2000a). Initial and fol- low-up mailings of a 79-item questionnaire were sent to PRSA’s 20,266 members. A total of 2,099 responses were received, for a response rate of 10.4%.

Fitzpatrick 117

Key findings related to code development include the following (ERC, 2000a):

PRSA and Ethical Standards

• A sizable majority (92%) strongly agreed that ethics is a key part of PRSA’s mission.

• Most (86%) agreed that PRSA’s commitment to the highest ethical standards adds value to PRSA membership.

• Most agreed that PRSA’ has a responsibility to set (87%), develop (92%), and uphold (92%) professional standards.

• Ninety-one percent believe that members’ commitment to a code of ethics can help brand PRSA as a leader in ethical conduct.

• Only half (50%) believe that the professional and ethical standards of PRSA are higher than the standards of the industry as a whole.

• Fewer than half (46%) said they would turn to PRSA for guidance if faced with unethical or disturbing situations in the workplace.

Enforcement and Education

• Ninety percent agreed that PRSA should deny or revoke membership for failure to meet code standards.

• Ninety-two percent believe that a formal mechanism should be in place to resolve allegations of ethical misconduct.

• Eighty-five percent believe that PRSA should offer some form of edu- cation, counseling, or mediation to help members meet code stan- dards, although only 57% said they would participate in PRSA ethics and professional standards training.

• Seventy-one percent believe that PRSA should invest financial re- sources in establishing a code of ethics, and 66% said PRSA should spend money to apply a code.

PRSA Code of Professional Standards for the Practice of Public Relations

• Seventy-two percent said they had read the existing code within the past 2 years; academics and accreditation candidates were most likely to have read it.

• Most members strongly agreed (91% or higher) with most of the state- ments in the current code, although some ambivalence, uncertainty, or both were noted with respect to provisions related to appearing as a witness in a code-related hearing; identifying publicly the name of a client or employer; not accepting fees, commissions, and gifts from

118 From Enforcement to Education

nonclients for client-related work; severing relations with organiza- tions or individuals requiring conduct contrary to the code; reporting unethical, illegal, or unfair practices; and conducting life in accord with the public interest.

When asked to share perceptions about the ethical climates in which they work, half of the members surveyed said they “feel an extraordinary amount of pressure to compromise their [ethical] standards” (ERC, 2000a, p. 23). Fifty percent said that they felt pressure from within their own orga- nizations, and 40% reported feeling pressure from clients. About one third (34%) reported observing misconduct, and more than half (53%) of those respondents said they reported observed misconduct.

… half of the members surveyed said they “feel an extraordinary

amount of pressure to compromise their [ethical]

standards.”

Of considerable importance to BEPS throughout the research process were findings related to PRSA leaders’ and members’ attitudes regarding code enforcement and ethics education. Thus, in addition to the prelimi- nary and formal research, the ERC posed three questions to PRSA Assem- bly delegates (who represent and vote in Assembly proceedings on behalf of PRSA chapter members). The survey questions and responses, as re- ported by the ERC (2000a, p. 27), follow:

1. “Should PRSA’s Code of Professional Standards be coupled with a provision for strong enforcement or voluntary compliance?” Responses: evenly divided.

2. “Do you believe [PRSA] should invest in an ethics education pro- gram for our members and our external audiences, our clients and our em- ployers? For example, do you believe [PRSA] should invest in an ethics ed- ucation program for members and external audiences?” Responses: yes.

3. “Ethical practice is our most powerful brand difference as a society. Do youseeethicsasabranddifferentiatorforPRSA?”Responses:evenlydivided.

Writing the Code

Unless otherwise noted, this section reports the observations of Kathy R. Fitzpatrick, who participated in the development of the new code. Other

Fitzpatrick 119

members of the 2000 PRSA Board of Ethics and Professional Standards were David M. Bicofsky, Roger D. Buehrer, Linda Welter Cohen, James Frankowiak, Robert D. Frause (Chair), Jeffrey P. Julin, James E. Lukaszew- ski, and James W. Wyckoff.

When the research phase concluded, the ERC reiterated its earlier rec- ommendation for PRSA to rewrite its code of ethics and develop the infra- structure and resources needed to support ongoing efforts related to ethics (ERC, 2000b). According to the ERC, a critical part of the package would be a communications and training strategy, as well as practical materials, to educate PRSA members and potential members about ethics matters. The ERC also stressed that PRSA leaders would have to support any new code both philosophically and financially.

The ERC’s recommendations provided the basis for the code-drafting process to begin and proved valuable in developing the format of the new code:

The revised code should have a strong aspirational framework that uses the PRSA mission as

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.