University of Botswana
Department of Media Studies
BMS 226 ETHICS FOR MEDIA PROFESSIONALS
HANDOUT 23: PUBLIC RELATIONS AND
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
This is an extract from the article Public-Relations and Corporate Social-Responsibility - Some Issues Arising by J L’etang, published in the Journal of Business Ethics (1994), Volume: 13, Issue: 2, Pages: 111-123
Read the full article here http://www.springerlink.com/content/ug017p5802735344/
Corporate social responsibility and public relations
Corporate social responsibility has become important to public relations because such programmes offer the opportunity to build good will by promoting the benefits of the company to its stakeholders. In addition to its advisory management role public relations also provides the techniques to communicate these activities to target publics which may include the media and individuals seen to be of influence to the organization. Corporate social responsibility falls within the public relations portfolio because it affects a company's image and reputation and public relations practitioners will want to capitalize on the opportunity because it tells publics exactly what sort of company they are dealing with.
It can be argued that corporate social responsibility is a good example of business responding to society's needs. Public relations facilitates both the activity and the process of communication and understanding to the benefit of all The definitions discussed above emphasize the importance of two way communication and the requirement to serve the public interest while counselling management. I would suggest that these obligations to management and society must sometimes conflict and create an internal tension and incompatibility for public relations and that some of the contradictions in corporate social responsibility programmes illustrate this tension.
Furthermore, the roles defined by Grunig and Hunt suggest different and potentially conflicting relationships for the public relations practitioner when dealing with varied publics in society. For
Grunig and Hunt do not suggest that organizations necessarily fall into one category or another – what they suggest is that some communications emanating from an organization will fall into one category, some into another. My argument here suggests that at present communications about corporate social responsibility do not often fall into the ideal two way symmetric model. (Note: The two-way asymmetric model is so-called because it attempts to incorporate concepts of feedback into its framework so that the source can adapt its message more appropriately to the receiver(s).)
While the initial corporate social responsibility programme such as an environmental programme in
the community, may be symmetrical in relation to its receiver, subsequent publicity may be directed at other influential publics for the purpose of image enhancement. This was certainly the case with the oil company cited earlier which was carrying out programmes with one public with a view to impressing another. There are several ethical problems which arise from this approach. One wonders what will happen to the programme once it becomes no longer necessary to approach the second public (or if the action does not have the desired effect - say, for example in helping a planning or development project through the local political arena). In other words, the commitment of the company may be contingent on factors other than the primary, relationship between donor and recipient.
If the programme were chosen by public relations practitioners to appeal in the first instance to some public other than the recipient then both the motivation of the company with regard to its stated
intention and its commitment to the project must be questioned. This is at the crux of the moral problem which lies at the centre of corporate social responsibility.
Corporate social responsibility itself is potentially an example of symmetrical public relations but when communicated to a third party it becomes publicity or public information in Grunig and Hunt's terms. In a case where a company acknowledges and communicates its self-interest the public relations is being truthful (and could be defined as the public information model) but it is not symmetrical in that it is not representing the views of publics/recipients to management in a way that will encourage management/the organization to change.
This is not to accept that corporate social responsibility and public relations are two different actions;
it is simply arguing that two different types of public relations are taking place.
Evaluating corporate social responsibility
Corporate social responsibility can and does bring marketing-type benefits to business by delivering target publics to the corporation. Corporate social responsibility may be seen as an investment against the day when a crisis occurs and the company needs all the goodwill it can muster. A company that is seen as having a genuine, long-term relationship with its stakeholders and the community is less likely to be regarded as simply indulging in 'the hypocrisy of public relations'?
The small-scale research which I undertook suggested a varied rationale for undertaking programmes of corporate social responsibility. Some examples are cited beneath,
... Sainsbury's [a leading food retailer] is responding to
the gathering momentum of public concern about the
environment...
•. . As public consciousness of our physical environment
has risen, as concern for the young and disadvantaged has
grown and as the need to maintain our cultural heritage
has been more widely felt, so has Shell UK's involvement
in the community increased...
... The formalization of the programme was in some
senses a self-defence mechanism - it was to prove that
we had already been active and were not simply reacting
to government pressure . . . However, some of the programmes
which were developed were very definitely
influenced by government, particularly our early emphasis
on job creation schemes for young people in the
mid-1980s...
... There rests on all companies, particularly large
organizations like, ours, a responsibility to assist through
donations and help, the charities and agencies which exist
in the community ... The contribution that this can
make to the community as a whole is substantial and
provides a lead for others . . .
. . . because industry is intrinsically part of the community,
its every action will affect the wider community ...
... our community affairs programme is based upon
enlightened self-interest and a recognition of the interdependence
of the company and the community...
'Partnership' is something which we in BP accept as
fundamental to the way we go about our business. It
features strongly in the statement of values recently
circulated throughout the BP group to remind ourselves
of issues which can too easily be taken for granted. These
values recognise our responsibilities to' all who have a
stake in our affairs - employees, customers, shareholders
and the community wherever we operate...
. . Companies... can at least take their place alongside
the many other organizations working to improve conditions
in the wider community.., the process is part of
business' licence to operate...
Companies generally did not publicize or explain what they think the nature of their moral obligation is or how it related to their programmes of corporate social responsibility. Sainsbury's is fairly unusual in linking rather generalized phrases to specific issues as they do in their company objectives published in their annual report,
. . To discharge the responsibility as leaders in our trade
by acting with complete integrity, by carrying out our
work to the highest standards and by contributing to the
public good and to the quality of life in the community. . . In our stores, to achieve the highest level of cleanliness...
A good example of a rather more self-interested motivation follows in the statement made by the
Chairman of BP,
... Clearly it is our function to conduct our business
profitably, efficiently and responding to meet our obligations
to shareholders, employees, customers and suppliers.
As well as creating wealth from the supply of our
products and offering skills training and centres of
excellence, the £2 billion we have paid in taxes in the last
two years represents a substantial contribution to the
economic welt-being of the UK.
However we acknowledge that this is not enough. Our
policy of contributing in other ways to society is based on
the recognition that the long-term interests of a company
depend on a prosperous and peaceful community. Our
community affairs programme is based on enlightened
self-interest and an understanding of the need for close
relationships between the company and the communities
in which we live and work.
Business' justification of corporate social responsibility programmes is not usually fully argued in their promotional literature but as in the examples given above limited to phrases such as 'we have an obligation to the community', 'social responsibility is good business because it ensures a sound economic base and a good image'; 'because everyone is better off'. The first of these justifications suggests that corporations must recognize specific obligations to the community; that a community has rights and the corporation has duties. The others are utilitarian in structure and emphasize that corporate social responsibility should be judged by its beneficial effects in society: in these cases, it is the ends which are important, not the means.
The public relations academic literature has tended to follow the same line of justification, and to suggest that corporations might benefit even more from their corporate social responsibility programmes than they do at present and ways in which this might be achieved.
There is also some terminological confusion in some of the literature. 'Corporate philanthropy',
'corporate responsibility', and 'corporate social responsibility' are often used interchangeably. However,
these phrases imply different types of activity. The terms 'corporate responsibility' and 'corporate social responsibility' suggest that these are activities a company ought to carry out from a sense of duty or obligation. Corporate philanthropy, however, suggests a voluntary action done out of generosity and beneficence, a charitable act. Charity should not be confused with corporate social responsibility. Charity cannot be demanded, though the recipient may be very grateful for it because there cannot be a right to
charity which, though praiseworthy, depends upon benevolence and altruism. Charity or corporate philanthropy and corporate social responsibility share some features, for example, they both create
relations of dependence between donor and recipient.
Getting value for money from corporate social responsibility programmes is becoming an important
business objective and, increasingly, ... public relations practitioners and marketers are taking an active role in corporate contributions, designing publicity campaigns and promotions around programs of charitable giving. Increasingly, too, justifications are economic and self-interested:
Whatever its more altruistic role, proactive corporate
social responsibility, and more particularly, the successful
generation of public awareness and appreciation of it, is
good for business.
For example, one book written for a business audience recommends:
. . Endowing a university chair is an expensive business,
but can be valuable. Apart from the public relations
benefits, it may mean that research can be directed into
an area which interests you at less cost than establishing
your own facilities...
What I want to suggest here is that this approach is ethically unsound and, indeed, can nullify the apparent
good that corporations do. This is not to deny that their actions may result in good ends, judged upon utilitarian criteria, but I would suggest that companies should be cautious about the amount of good they claim they do through these actions (a) because the theoretical utilitarian justification itself is open to criticism and (b) because a utilitarian approach requires a certain type of practical evaluation to take place.
Given that some corporations attempt to justify corporate social responsibility in economic terms, this seems to suggest that corporations such as BP (cited above) feel they need not engage in moral discourse about activities they simultaneously claim as being of moral benefit. However, economic activity is not separate from moral activity. Indeed it has been pointed out elsewhere the free market institution itself is a product of convictions about the nature of a good society and what constitutes a fair distribution of goods and services.
Economic goals are social and political goals. To measure corporate social responsibility only in terms of its potential contribution to the bottom line is a very limited form of evaluation. Increasingly, as shown in the earlier examples, companies promote themselves by publicizing their corporate contribution to society.
The effect of greater awareness of corporate social responsibility and corporate obligation to society has had the effect of entangling corporations in a web of moral discourse which they cannot then either escape or deny. Measuring the effectiveness of corporate social responsibility in terms of the
amount of publicity received suggests (though does not necessarily prove) a self-interested motivation. It is this possibility which raises ethical questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment