- Email: [email protected]
Can't we all just get along: Cultural variables in codes of ethics
Public RelaticmsReview, 22(2): 151-161
ISSN: 0363-8111
Nuncy L. Roth, Todd Hunt, Maria Stavropoulos,and Khm Babik
Copyright 0 1996 by JAI Press Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
1Can’t We All Just Get Along: Cultural Variables in Codes of Ethics ABSTRACT: Ethical issues in the practice of public relations become increasingly complex when international borders are crossed. Differences in what “counts” as public relations as well as what “counts” as ethical practice abound. Rather than taking the position that a specific, “objective” code of ethics can be developed or arguing that cultural diversity makes ethical standards impossible, this paper argues that an international set of principies for practice is feasible. Such a set of principles can only be agreed upon if representatives of diverse organizations and cultural values will work together to understand each others’ perspectives. This approach is consistent with the goal of ccmu~al understanding’ that increasingly characterizes public relations practice. It is also consistent with recent theoretical work in ethics and postcolonialism. Nancy L. Roth is Assistant Professor of Communication, Todd Hunt is Professor of evocation, Maria Stavropoulos is a Ph.D. student, and Karen Babik is completing her Masters Degree in the School of Communication, Information, and Library Studies at Rutgers University.
Rodney King’s plaintive plea “Can’t we all just get along?” -voiced at a rally of his supporters after a notorious California trial that split Americans along cultural lines-may be a phrase with multiple utility. It is a Summer
1996
151
Public Relations Review
question we should be asking at this point in the discussion about whether or not cultural variables make it impossible to construct a code of ethics that would govern the behaviors of public relations practitioners in global settings-people from countries with very diverse cultures. Are we really so different that we “can’t all just get along?” Arguing that such a code is possible, Hunt and Tirpok proposed that initial steps should be an attempt “to put forth a general code and let its interpretation and use suggest further refinements that will help adopt it to the nuances of the global community.“1 Kruckeberg seconded the motion, observing that “cultural relativism is not problematic for a universal ethics code” and that “globally . . . there is a plenitude of shared ethical values, and those which are within differing areas of moral ‘taste’ can be discussed, universally accepted or negotiated.“2 Wright dissented, noting that cultural differences cannot be accommodated by a code of ethics. According to Wright, ‘With or without professional codes of conduct most who practice public relations will choose to be ethical because they believe in themselves and want others to respect them,” and thus an attempt at forging a universal ethics code is unnecessary.3 This paper extends the debate by exploring recent research about the meaning of “public relations” in cross-cultural settings, calling into question simplistic conceptions of cultural variability, and reviewing codes of ethics in use in global settings. We suggest ways that the door can be kept open to discussion of a “universal)) approach to ethical behavior that will be useful in the emerging era of Multi-National Enterprises (MNEs).~ With increased globalization in all aspects of social life, it is essential for public relations practitioners to engage in ongoing discussions about ethical practice with international colleagues. While all may not agree to a specific ethics “code,” there might be agreement to a set of principles that contain enough ambiguity to allow for differing interpretations and practices. Such a set of principles might move international public relations practice closer to the goal of “mutual understanding” that is the foundation for many of the “two-way” models of public relations currently in use.5
MULTICULTURAL MJ3ANINGS OF PUBLIC RELATIONS When questions of multicultural differences arise, it is easy to establish one type of practice or principles as the model against which all others are compared. In public relations, the United States model has played that role in the literature. In this section we will present examples of discussions of the public relations practices of “others” viewed from the perspective of United States practice. We will argue that it is dangerous to establish one mode of practice as the norm and thereby label all other practices as deviant. In the following section, an alternative perspective is proposed. Over 25 years ago, a practical book called The Public Relations Man Abroad sketched out cultural differences in major trading partners of the United States, 152
Vol. 22. No. 2
Can’t We
AllJust Get Along
including Japan and Germany.6 The Japanese, it was noted, say “yes” when they mean “no” out of politeness (p.182). The Germans think it appropriate to serve champagne during a press conference, while Americans think drinking should wait until later (p.97). American companies are hyper-cautious about admitting any responsibility for causing a disaster, because company lawyers convince management that the courtroom is the only place to assess blame. The Japanese, however, are conditioned to ask forgiveness and even to express a willingness to resign. . . or even die. After a 1985 air crash, the company’s president offered personal apologies to the families of the dead, made speedy financial reparations, and attended memorial services. A technician responsible for preparing the doomed plane for flight committed suicide to atone for his part in the disaster.7 Indeed, a Japanese scholar studying in the United States suggests that the Japanese government’s non-practice of public relations was responsible for a bungling of relationships with the international community following the Kobe earthquake. Unlike in America where crisis communication plans are in place, in Japan it was days before the government appeared to be in control and before correct information was provided to key publics.8 On the other hand, American practices do not always serve well in foreign settings. One U.S. public relations agency lost an account in London because its budget for entertaining the media was too low, suggesting that the agency was not good at cozying up to the press and entertaining lavishly-practices frowned upon in America and specifically forbidden by the ethics codes of the Society of Professional Journalists and the Public Relations Society of America.9 As easygoing and casual as Americans are reputed to be both at home and abroad, Americans tend to think of business as just that-not to be confused with friendship or intimacy. Most other cultures are different. Culbertson notes that Confucian values emphasize personal relationships that govern business relationships to the point that “interpersonal relationships serve as the main basis for strong public relationships.“(p. 38).10 In the Arab world, “public” is not even linked with “relations”; the preferred term is “general relations” or “general affairs” because the word “public” cannot be translated literally in Arabic. Al-Enad (p.24) suggests that the semantic problem “may have contributed to the persistent vagueness of the nature, goals, roles, and functions of public relations” in the Arab countries.11 In a similar vein, Signitzer suggests that “public diplomacy” may be a more palatable label for influence and persuasion in Europe, where “public relations” is seen as a toughminded attempt to influence foreign attitudes through the use of rapid-fire media messages instead of slow debate.12 Americans often assume that media-use patterns are the same in other countries as they are in the U.S., and thus media relations can follow the same pattern. Even in neighboring Canada, there are far fewer “local” newspapers and several regional or national newspapers, so the concept of a “hometown news release” does not work as well north of the border as it does at home.13 Summer 1996
1.53
Public Relations Review
A communications company executive in Hong Kong discovered that the colony, with approximately the same population as the Chicago area, is served by more than 40 newspapers and over 600 magazines, making media placement a nightmare.14 “People tend to forget that Asia is even more complex than Europe because of the autonomous development of small geographies,” said the executive. “Each has its own laws, business styles, ethics, history of business development. If you find anyone who really understands the media of Japan, China, India, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia. . . they are indeed a novelty” (p. 1-15). The views expressed in this literature establish United States customs as the “norm” and those of practitioners in other countries as “other.” This approach leads to development of ethics codes that attempt to impose U.S. standards on practitioners from other countries and on U.S. nationals working elsewhere. Such an approach is problematic because U.S. standards are highly specific and legalistic and leave little room for cultural variation. It also establishes the US. method of conducting business as the most ethical without calling into question U.S. practices. For example, this literature might be viewed as suggesting not only that U.S. and Japanese practitioners might handle an airplane crash differently, but also that the U.S. tendency to protect the company name and wealth from lawsuits is more ethical than the Japanese desire to apologize and make restitution to affected families.
RETHINKING
CULTURAL
VARIABLES
Too often in the past, cultural variables were thought of as “quaint customs” that one merely had to “learn about” in order to succeed in foreign settings-don’t show the bottom of your shoes to people in Arab lands, remember to bow when meeting the Japanese, take a gift when you are entertained in someone’s home, and don’t make this or that gesture that means something-or-other lewd in such-and-such country. The idea that knowledge about customs makes it possible for different cultures to overcome differences is simplistic. Recent writings by communication scholars-and, indeed, recent actions taken by companies and countries engaged in global commerce-indicate that cross-cultural sophistication is increasing. Botan suggests that “what has been called international public relations may not actually be the two-way multicultural exercise that its name implies.15 The practice of public relations across borders often. . . is controlled and directed from the home country based on assumptions inherent to the home country. As a result, business practice often may not really be -national public relations but might better be called a-border public relations” (pp.151-152). He proposes (p.157) that overcoming ethnocentrism and viewing public relations “in different ways than many of us in developed countries have in the past” is the key to formulating a truly global approach. 154
Vol. 22, No. 2
Can’t We AllJust Get Alulzg
L. Grunig suggests that too often when organizations try to petiorm on a global scale, public relations is equated with media relations.16 She proposes (p. 129) that a new name might be in order-publics relations rather than public relations -to emphasize the “strategic constituencies” approach that is necessary when working on a global scale. In that way of thinking, the media would fall behind several other publics-most notably the local, regional and national governments of the host country-when laying plans for helping the MNE adjust to their many publics in a multinational setting. Examples of how specific organizations are rethinking cultural variables abound: l
Wal-Mart, long accustomed to sending out English-only information in Canada, where it had little presence in the French-speaking areas, now has 22 Quebec stores operated entirely in French, including internal communications. The leader of Wal-Mart’s transition team in Quebec was responsible for making the company “cuhurally correct’ as well as legally correct.17
.
Chubb, the American insurance company, is one of many firms that has learned how to cope with the routine expectation of bribes to public officials in many countries. The U.S., of course, forbids American companies from paying bribes to win international business. Chubb satisfied the Chinese expectation of “sweetening the pot” in order to do business there, and stayed within U.S. regulations, by agreeing to set up a $1 million program to teach insurance at a university in Shanghai. Disney flies people from other countries for free training at its Disney World educational facilities, a perk that includes lodging and entertainment at the theme parks. Another enticement: scholarships to American universities for the children of foreign officials.1s
.
European companies have long had difficulty understanding why American companies reveal so much about their condition and their plans on a quarterly basis. The norm in Europe is to keep silent about short-term decisions, because that is seen as impeding the flexibility of management decision-making. The norm is changing however, as European companies--eager to seek capital on the world stage-are moving toward the American system of full, open and frequent disclosure.19
These examples characterize a practice of public relations that takes into account local standards and values. Yet, rather than suggesting that differences among such standards mitigate against universal ethical standards, we argue that such a guideline is possible. In the following sections we review existing codes and suggest that their power lies in “authority” rather than ccenforcement.‘J We suggest that a universal set of principles based on authority with sufficient ambiguity to account for cross-cultural differences is feasible. Summer1996
155
Public Relations Review
‘AUTHORITY’ ASSOCIATION
UNDERLIES CODES
The two major ethics codes adopted by professional public relations associations in the U.S. are the “IABC Code of Ethics” that applies to all members of the International Association of Business Communicators and the “Code for Professional Standards for the Practice of Public Relations” that applies to all members of the Public Relations Society of America. The codes also apply to the student groups affiiated with the professional associations. Since about one public relations professional in ten in the U.S. belongs to these associations, it is fair to say that only ten percent of American practitioners are bound by the codes and subject to penalty if they are charged with a violation. Officers of the professional organizations have authority and responsibility to hold hearings, determine culpability, and expel from the association members who violate the code. In practice, very few violations are reported. In fact, when the president of one of the associations was charged publicly with a violation in the 198Os, he resigned his presidency and his membership, continuing the practice of public relations in the large regional firm that bears his name. Thus it can be seen that while the power to expel members who violate their codes of ethics gives professional associations “authoriv it really does not serve to give them control over the profession or its members. Indeed, ethics codes are not controllers of behavior, they are merely modelsfor behavior. That raises the issue of whether they should even be called “codes,” since a code usually implies enforcement, as in the military’s codes of conduct or the code of laws enacted by governments. We are one step along the semantic trail of abandoning the term “ethics code.” Another problem with prescribing and proscribing through the use of a code is the need for completeness. The PRSA code is under 400 words long, and it highlights (literally, in boldface type) such overarching and generic concepts as public interest, honesty, integrity, deal fairly, accuracy, truth that it appears at first to be steering clear of cultural contexts. But the PRSA code does not stand alone. It is accompanied by a section called “Interpretations of the Code” that gets into very specific prohibitions on compensating or entertaining the media-rules that are counter to the norms in many countries. Other lengthy interpretative sections are provided for those who engage in the practice of political and financial public relations. In its attempt to account for all of the code violations that are likely to occur in specific settings, the PRSA code becomes increasingly ethnocentric, and increasingly difficult to apply to the work done by MI&Es. In the past two years, Russian public relations practitioners have moved to organize and to promote ethical behavior. 2o In 1994, a professional association was formed in Moscow, and on August 16, 1994, the St. Petersburg Association of Public Relations Specialists adopted a “Professional Code” that is remarkably similar to the IABC and PRSA codes. The St. Petersburg code calls for “protecting, preserving, and respecting freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and existing legislation.” It states that public relations practitioners must provide 156
Vol. 22. No. 2
Can’t We
AllJust Get Along
“objective and reliable information,” that they must not violate the fairness and objectivity of the mass media, that they must inform clients if there is a conflict of interest stemming from working for more than one client, and that they must report violations of the code to the Association. In contrast, the Code of Athens-the International Code of Ethics that applies to members of the International Public Relations Association-is much more general, avoids interpretations, and bases its moral authority on the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” which was adopted in 1948 by the United Nations General Assembly. In its simplicity, it probably is a much better starting place for understanding how we can “all get along” than are the ethics codes stamped “Made in America.”
NEW THINKING ABOUT ETHICAL CONDUCT In the past decade, analysis of the role of MNEs engaged in global communication has led to new thinking about how best to articulate basic expectations of ethical behavior. Donaldson identified 10 “minimal” human rights that can be applied or honored by all international moral agents. 21 His list does not explicitly refer to any local culture : 1.
The right to freedom of physical movement.
2.
The right to ownership of property.
3.
The right to freedom from torture.
4.
The right to a fair trial.
5.
The right to non-discriminatory
6.
The right to physical security.
7.
The right to freedom of speech and association.
8.
The right to minimal education.
9.
The right to political participation.
10.
treatment (on the basis of race or sex).
The right to subsistence.
DeGeorge suggested that despite differences in culture and values among nations, there are moral norms that can be applied to multinational enterprises. He proposed seven principles to guide MNEs in ethical conduct: 1.
MNEs should do no intentional direct harm.
2.
MNEs should produce more good than bad for the host country.
Summer 1996
157
3.
MNEs should contribute by their activities to the host country’s development.
4.
MNEs should respect the human rights of their employees.
5.
MNEs should pay their fair share of taxes.
6.
To the extent that local culture does not violate moral norms, MNEs should respect the local culture and work with it, not against it.
7.
MNEs
should
cooperate
ment and enforcement
with the local government of just background
in the develop-
institutions.22
Perhaps the first international code of ethics crafted by business leaders for business is the CAUX Round Table Principles, the result of a collaborative effort by business leaders from Japan, Europe, and the United States. The CAUX Round Table was established in 1986 in Caux-sur-Montreux, Switzerland, to bring together global business leaders to reduce trade tensions. The Principles reflect two ideals, Japan’s concept of Kyosei-living and working together for the common good-and the Western concept of human dignity.23 The Principles address the following concerns: 1.
The respo~ibi~~es of businesses (which are further outlined in a lengthy section titled “Stakeholder Principles” that specifies behaviors toward customers, employees, owners/investors, suppliers, competitors, and communities).
2.
The economic
3.
Business
behavior
4.
Respect
for rules.
5.
Support
for multilateral
6.
Respect
for the environment,
7.
Avoidance
and social impact of business. that is based on trust.
trade.
of illicit operations.
The CAUX Round Table Principles were based, in part, on the Minnesota Principles crafted by business leaders who are members of the M~esota Center for Corporate Responsibility. Bob MacGregor, president of the Center, helped draft the CAUX Round Table Principles. MacGregor says acceptance of the Principles has been widespread and that “enlightened business leaders know that all stakeholders profit under a common set of values.” To reach the skeptics, however, MacGregor believes that business leaders who subscribe to the Principles will have to show how abiding by the precepts will open markets, increase productivity, and affect the bottom line of profits positively. The Principles do not explicitly acknowledge the need to respect the cuitural diversity of each group of stakeholders -an issue MacGregor says was raised 158
Vol. 22, No. 2
Can’t We All Just Get Along
but not dealt with. With the addition of that perspective, the CAUX Round Table Principles would serve as a good model for a document of utility to MNEs as they pursue their global communications. The Principles also could and should be extended to include the ethical behavior of government, since business behaviors so often reflect compliance with the laws of home and host countries.24
CONCLUSION The question of whether or not it is possible to develop a set of ethical principles that is meaningful across cultures in the current global business and political environment raises issues about objectivity. Do standards need to take into account cultural differences of what “counts” as “moral?” Does objectivity mean that cultural differences cannot be recognized? Too often, as we noted in the introduction to this article, the debate about objectivity is reduced to a question of whether it is better to subscribe to a rigid, culturally specific value system that does not account for cultural difference (“weak objectivity”) or to subscribe to a system of “judgmental relativism” where there are no standards. A third possibility, “strong objectivity,” calls for an analysis of historically situated local beliefs-both those of “others” and those of the United States.25 By looking at U.S. generated codes of ethics from the standpoint of “others” we might begin to understand and critique our own system of values, rather than trying to impose it uncritically on others. From the perspective of “other, ” United States and other Western countries are seen as subscribing to an ethical position that values autonomy over most other principles. The individual has the privilege of ownership and autonomous action. In contrast, other cultures (including some women’s cultures in the West) value connection. This might account for the differences mentioned above between the handling of air disasters in Japan and the U.S., for example. Neither of these ethical positions accounts for the relative differences in power wielded by different countries in the world economy.26 Recent post-colonial literature suggests that issues of relative power ought to be addressed as well. A universal set of ethical principles should take into account the differing power exerted by countries and organizations in the global economy.27 Future work on international ethical principles should explore thoroughly the issue of power in the international practice of public relations. Viewing Western values from the standpoint of others may lead to the ability to create or modify universal standards that account for cultural difference by using wording that allows for flexibility in interpretation28 but does not impose ethnocentric standards.29 Such a move is consistent with the goal of “mutual understanding” that increasingly characterizes the practice of public relations in the global environment.30 American professional associations, particularly IABC and PRSA, should consider reviewing their codes of ethics from the standpoint of the “others” with whom practitioners are increasingly doing business. They should take into Summer 1996
159
Public RelationsReview
account differing cultural valuations of autonomy and connectivity as well as differences in global power. Finally, they should consider the ramifications of carrymg “codes” of “ethics” across national borders and consider instead the development of mutually agreed upon principles to guide global practice. Adoption of such practices is not only ethical, but it also might result in a move toward international cooperation-perhaps we can “get along.” Acknowledgment: The authors are indebted to Alexandre G. Nicolaev, a member of the board of directors of the Russian Public Communications Company, for providing a translation of the St. Petersburg Code. Mr. Nicolaev spent the 19951996 academic year as a visiting scholar at the Center for International Trade Development at Oklahoma State University. In a personal communication with the second author, he reported that while in the United States, he visited with Ray Gaulke and Elizabeth Allan, the top administrators of the PRSA and IABC respectively, and found “that there were more similarities than differences between us; we shared the same human values.”
NOTES 1. 2. 3. 4.
5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
11. 12. 13. 14.
160
Todd Hunt and Andrew Tirpok, “Universal Ethics Code: An Idea Whose Time Has Come,” PublicRelationsReview 19 (1993), pp. l-11. Dan Kruckeberg, ‘Universal Ethics Code: Both Possible and Feasible,” Public RelationsReview 19 (1993), pp. 21-31. Donald K. Wright, “Enforcement Dilemma: Voluntary Nature of Public Relations Codes,” Public Relations Review 19 (1993), pp. 13-20. We have chosen MNEs rather than MNCs-Multi-National Corporations-because of our belief that nonprofit groups and governmental groups face most of the issues that for-profit organizations must deal with in a global setting. James Grunig and Todd Hunt, Managing Public Relations (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1984). Geoffrey Kean, The Public RelationsMan Abroad (New York: Praeger, 1968). Marion K. Pinsdorf, “Flying Different Skies: How Cultures Respond to Airline Disasters,” Public Relations Review 17 (1991), pp. 37-56. Junk0 Taguchi, “Japanese Officials and PR Mentality,” Public Relations Quatie@ 40 (1995), pp. 31-37. David M. Grant, “Cross-Cultural Crossed Signals,” Public Relations Journal 44 (1988), p. 48. Ni Chen and Hugh M. Culbertson, “Two Contrasting Approaches of Government Public Relations in Mainland China,” Public Relations Quarterly 37 (1993), pp. 3641. Abdulrahman H. Al-Enad, “Public Relations’ Roles in Developing Countries,” Public RelationsQuartlerly 35 (1991), pp. 24-26. Benno H. Signitzer and Timothy Coombs, “Public Relations and Public Diplomacy: Conceptual Convergences”Public Relations Rmiew 18 (1992), pp. 137-147. Melvin L. Sharpe, “The Impact of Social and Cultural Conditioning on Global Public Relations,” Public Relations Repiav 18 (1992), pp. 103-107. Geoffrey L. Martin, ‘West Unraveling Mysteries of Culture,” Advertis&& Age International (Oct. 16, 1995), pp. 115-116. Vol. 22, No. 2
Can’t We All Just Get Along
15. 16. 17. 18.
19. 20.
21. 22.
23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.
30.
Carl Botan, “International Public Relations: Critique and Reformulation,” Public Relations Review 18 (1992), pp. 149-159. Larissa A. Grunig, ‘Strategic Public Relations Constituencies on a Global Scale,” Public Relations Repiew 18 (1992), pp. 127-136. Jon Kalina, “ ‘Vive la Difference’: Learning Trade North of 49th Parallel,” Advertising&eI&rnational (Sept. 18, 1995), pp. 123, 130. Dana Milbank and Marcus W. Brauchli, “Greasing Wheels: How U.S. Concerns Compete in Countries Where Bribes Flourish,” The Wall Street Journal (Sept. 29, 1995), p. Al. Editors, “Governance Goes Global,” Inside PR V (1995), pp. 18-20. Alexandre G. Nikolaev and A.G. Gorgin, “The Value of a PR Association to Russians,” International Association of Business Communicators Communication World 12 (1995), pp. 7-9. Thomas Donaldson, The Ethics of International Business (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989) R.T. DeGeorge, “Ethical Dilemmas for Multinational Enterprises: A Philosophical Overview.” In Hoffman, Lange and Fedo (Eds.) Ethics and the Multinational Enterprise: Proceedings of the Sixth National Conference on Business Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), pp. 39-46. Joe Skelly, “The Rise of International Ethics,” Business Ethics, unnumbered reprint. MacGregor was interviewed by one of the authors in August 1995. Sandra Harding, whose Science? Whose Kizowledge? (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1991). Seyla Benhabib, Situating the Self Gender, Comma&~ and Postmoderrkm in Contemporay Ethics (New York: Routledge, 1992). Edward Said, Orientalism (New York: Routledge, 1978). Eric Eisenberg, “‘Ambiguity as Strategic Organizational Communication,” Communication Momgraphs 51 (1984), pp. 227-242. Heddy R. Dexter, Kathy Drew, Jolanta A. Drzewiecka, Barbara M. Gayle, Dreama G. Moon, Sami Reist, Richard A. Rogers, Nancy L. Roth, Michelle T. Violanti, and Kathleen Wong, “Reconceptualizing Identity and Agency in Communication Theory,” paper presented at the Speech Communication Association Annual Conference, San Antonio, TX, 1995. James Grunig and Todd Hunt, op. cit.
Summer 1996
161
ISSN: 0363-8111
Nuncy L. Roth, Todd Hunt, Maria Stavropoulos,and Khm Babik
Copyright 0 1996 by JAI Press Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
1Can’t We All Just Get Along: Cultural Variables in Codes of Ethics ABSTRACT: Ethical issues in the practice of public relations become increasingly complex when international borders are crossed. Differences in what “counts” as public relations as well as what “counts” as ethical practice abound. Rather than taking the position that a specific, “objective” code of ethics can be developed or arguing that cultural diversity makes ethical standards impossible, this paper argues that an international set of principies for practice is feasible. Such a set of principles can only be agreed upon if representatives of diverse organizations and cultural values will work together to understand each others’ perspectives. This approach is consistent with the goal of ccmu~al understanding’ that increasingly characterizes public relations practice. It is also consistent with recent theoretical work in ethics and postcolonialism. Nancy L. Roth is Assistant Professor of Communication, Todd Hunt is Professor of evocation, Maria Stavropoulos is a Ph.D. student, and Karen Babik is completing her Masters Degree in the School of Communication, Information, and Library Studies at Rutgers University.
Rodney King’s plaintive plea “Can’t we all just get along?” -voiced at a rally of his supporters after a notorious California trial that split Americans along cultural lines-may be a phrase with multiple utility. It is a Summer
1996
151
Public Relations Review
question we should be asking at this point in the discussion about whether or not cultural variables make it impossible to construct a code of ethics that would govern the behaviors of public relations practitioners in global settings-people from countries with very diverse cultures. Are we really so different that we “can’t all just get along?” Arguing that such a code is possible, Hunt and Tirpok proposed that initial steps should be an attempt “to put forth a general code and let its interpretation and use suggest further refinements that will help adopt it to the nuances of the global community.“1 Kruckeberg seconded the motion, observing that “cultural relativism is not problematic for a universal ethics code” and that “globally . . . there is a plenitude of shared ethical values, and those which are within differing areas of moral ‘taste’ can be discussed, universally accepted or negotiated.“2 Wright dissented, noting that cultural differences cannot be accommodated by a code of ethics. According to Wright, ‘With or without professional codes of conduct most who practice public relations will choose to be ethical because they believe in themselves and want others to respect them,” and thus an attempt at forging a universal ethics code is unnecessary.3 This paper extends the debate by exploring recent research about the meaning of “public relations” in cross-cultural settings, calling into question simplistic conceptions of cultural variability, and reviewing codes of ethics in use in global settings. We suggest ways that the door can be kept open to discussion of a “universal)) approach to ethical behavior that will be useful in the emerging era of Multi-National Enterprises (MNEs).~ With increased globalization in all aspects of social life, it is essential for public relations practitioners to engage in ongoing discussions about ethical practice with international colleagues. While all may not agree to a specific ethics “code,” there might be agreement to a set of principles that contain enough ambiguity to allow for differing interpretations and practices. Such a set of principles might move international public relations practice closer to the goal of “mutual understanding” that is the foundation for many of the “two-way” models of public relations currently in use.5
MULTICULTURAL MJ3ANINGS OF PUBLIC RELATIONS When questions of multicultural differences arise, it is easy to establish one type of practice or principles as the model against which all others are compared. In public relations, the United States model has played that role in the literature. In this section we will present examples of discussions of the public relations practices of “others” viewed from the perspective of United States practice. We will argue that it is dangerous to establish one mode of practice as the norm and thereby label all other practices as deviant. In the following section, an alternative perspective is proposed. Over 25 years ago, a practical book called The Public Relations Man Abroad sketched out cultural differences in major trading partners of the United States, 152
Vol. 22. No. 2
Can’t We
AllJust Get Along
including Japan and Germany.6 The Japanese, it was noted, say “yes” when they mean “no” out of politeness (p.182). The Germans think it appropriate to serve champagne during a press conference, while Americans think drinking should wait until later (p.97). American companies are hyper-cautious about admitting any responsibility for causing a disaster, because company lawyers convince management that the courtroom is the only place to assess blame. The Japanese, however, are conditioned to ask forgiveness and even to express a willingness to resign. . . or even die. After a 1985 air crash, the company’s president offered personal apologies to the families of the dead, made speedy financial reparations, and attended memorial services. A technician responsible for preparing the doomed plane for flight committed suicide to atone for his part in the disaster.7 Indeed, a Japanese scholar studying in the United States suggests that the Japanese government’s non-practice of public relations was responsible for a bungling of relationships with the international community following the Kobe earthquake. Unlike in America where crisis communication plans are in place, in Japan it was days before the government appeared to be in control and before correct information was provided to key publics.8 On the other hand, American practices do not always serve well in foreign settings. One U.S. public relations agency lost an account in London because its budget for entertaining the media was too low, suggesting that the agency was not good at cozying up to the press and entertaining lavishly-practices frowned upon in America and specifically forbidden by the ethics codes of the Society of Professional Journalists and the Public Relations Society of America.9 As easygoing and casual as Americans are reputed to be both at home and abroad, Americans tend to think of business as just that-not to be confused with friendship or intimacy. Most other cultures are different. Culbertson notes that Confucian values emphasize personal relationships that govern business relationships to the point that “interpersonal relationships serve as the main basis for strong public relationships.“(p. 38).10 In the Arab world, “public” is not even linked with “relations”; the preferred term is “general relations” or “general affairs” because the word “public” cannot be translated literally in Arabic. Al-Enad (p.24) suggests that the semantic problem “may have contributed to the persistent vagueness of the nature, goals, roles, and functions of public relations” in the Arab countries.11 In a similar vein, Signitzer suggests that “public diplomacy” may be a more palatable label for influence and persuasion in Europe, where “public relations” is seen as a toughminded attempt to influence foreign attitudes through the use of rapid-fire media messages instead of slow debate.12 Americans often assume that media-use patterns are the same in other countries as they are in the U.S., and thus media relations can follow the same pattern. Even in neighboring Canada, there are far fewer “local” newspapers and several regional or national newspapers, so the concept of a “hometown news release” does not work as well north of the border as it does at home.13 Summer 1996
1.53
Public Relations Review
A communications company executive in Hong Kong discovered that the colony, with approximately the same population as the Chicago area, is served by more than 40 newspapers and over 600 magazines, making media placement a nightmare.14 “People tend to forget that Asia is even more complex than Europe because of the autonomous development of small geographies,” said the executive. “Each has its own laws, business styles, ethics, history of business development. If you find anyone who really understands the media of Japan, China, India, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia. . . they are indeed a novelty” (p. 1-15). The views expressed in this literature establish United States customs as the “norm” and those of practitioners in other countries as “other.” This approach leads to development of ethics codes that attempt to impose U.S. standards on practitioners from other countries and on U.S. nationals working elsewhere. Such an approach is problematic because U.S. standards are highly specific and legalistic and leave little room for cultural variation. It also establishes the US. method of conducting business as the most ethical without calling into question U.S. practices. For example, this literature might be viewed as suggesting not only that U.S. and Japanese practitioners might handle an airplane crash differently, but also that the U.S. tendency to protect the company name and wealth from lawsuits is more ethical than the Japanese desire to apologize and make restitution to affected families.
RETHINKING
CULTURAL
VARIABLES
Too often in the past, cultural variables were thought of as “quaint customs” that one merely had to “learn about” in order to succeed in foreign settings-don’t show the bottom of your shoes to people in Arab lands, remember to bow when meeting the Japanese, take a gift when you are entertained in someone’s home, and don’t make this or that gesture that means something-or-other lewd in such-and-such country. The idea that knowledge about customs makes it possible for different cultures to overcome differences is simplistic. Recent writings by communication scholars-and, indeed, recent actions taken by companies and countries engaged in global commerce-indicate that cross-cultural sophistication is increasing. Botan suggests that “what has been called international public relations may not actually be the two-way multicultural exercise that its name implies.15 The practice of public relations across borders often. . . is controlled and directed from the home country based on assumptions inherent to the home country. As a result, business practice often may not really be -national public relations but might better be called a-border public relations” (pp.151-152). He proposes (p.157) that overcoming ethnocentrism and viewing public relations “in different ways than many of us in developed countries have in the past” is the key to formulating a truly global approach. 154
Vol. 22, No. 2
Can’t We AllJust Get Alulzg
L. Grunig suggests that too often when organizations try to petiorm on a global scale, public relations is equated with media relations.16 She proposes (p. 129) that a new name might be in order-publics relations rather than public relations -to emphasize the “strategic constituencies” approach that is necessary when working on a global scale. In that way of thinking, the media would fall behind several other publics-most notably the local, regional and national governments of the host country-when laying plans for helping the MNE adjust to their many publics in a multinational setting. Examples of how specific organizations are rethinking cultural variables abound: l
Wal-Mart, long accustomed to sending out English-only information in Canada, where it had little presence in the French-speaking areas, now has 22 Quebec stores operated entirely in French, including internal communications. The leader of Wal-Mart’s transition team in Quebec was responsible for making the company “cuhurally correct’ as well as legally correct.17
.
Chubb, the American insurance company, is one of many firms that has learned how to cope with the routine expectation of bribes to public officials in many countries. The U.S., of course, forbids American companies from paying bribes to win international business. Chubb satisfied the Chinese expectation of “sweetening the pot” in order to do business there, and stayed within U.S. regulations, by agreeing to set up a $1 million program to teach insurance at a university in Shanghai. Disney flies people from other countries for free training at its Disney World educational facilities, a perk that includes lodging and entertainment at the theme parks. Another enticement: scholarships to American universities for the children of foreign officials.1s
.
European companies have long had difficulty understanding why American companies reveal so much about their condition and their plans on a quarterly basis. The norm in Europe is to keep silent about short-term decisions, because that is seen as impeding the flexibility of management decision-making. The norm is changing however, as European companies--eager to seek capital on the world stage-are moving toward the American system of full, open and frequent disclosure.19
These examples characterize a practice of public relations that takes into account local standards and values. Yet, rather than suggesting that differences among such standards mitigate against universal ethical standards, we argue that such a guideline is possible. In the following sections we review existing codes and suggest that their power lies in “authority” rather than ccenforcement.‘J We suggest that a universal set of principles based on authority with sufficient ambiguity to account for cross-cultural differences is feasible. Summer1996
155
Public Relations Review
‘AUTHORITY’ ASSOCIATION
UNDERLIES CODES
The two major ethics codes adopted by professional public relations associations in the U.S. are the “IABC Code of Ethics” that applies to all members of the International Association of Business Communicators and the “Code for Professional Standards for the Practice of Public Relations” that applies to all members of the Public Relations Society of America. The codes also apply to the student groups affiiated with the professional associations. Since about one public relations professional in ten in the U.S. belongs to these associations, it is fair to say that only ten percent of American practitioners are bound by the codes and subject to penalty if they are charged with a violation. Officers of the professional organizations have authority and responsibility to hold hearings, determine culpability, and expel from the association members who violate the code. In practice, very few violations are reported. In fact, when the president of one of the associations was charged publicly with a violation in the 198Os, he resigned his presidency and his membership, continuing the practice of public relations in the large regional firm that bears his name. Thus it can be seen that while the power to expel members who violate their codes of ethics gives professional associations “authoriv it really does not serve to give them control over the profession or its members. Indeed, ethics codes are not controllers of behavior, they are merely modelsfor behavior. That raises the issue of whether they should even be called “codes,” since a code usually implies enforcement, as in the military’s codes of conduct or the code of laws enacted by governments. We are one step along the semantic trail of abandoning the term “ethics code.” Another problem with prescribing and proscribing through the use of a code is the need for completeness. The PRSA code is under 400 words long, and it highlights (literally, in boldface type) such overarching and generic concepts as public interest, honesty, integrity, deal fairly, accuracy, truth that it appears at first to be steering clear of cultural contexts. But the PRSA code does not stand alone. It is accompanied by a section called “Interpretations of the Code” that gets into very specific prohibitions on compensating or entertaining the media-rules that are counter to the norms in many countries. Other lengthy interpretative sections are provided for those who engage in the practice of political and financial public relations. In its attempt to account for all of the code violations that are likely to occur in specific settings, the PRSA code becomes increasingly ethnocentric, and increasingly difficult to apply to the work done by MI&Es. In the past two years, Russian public relations practitioners have moved to organize and to promote ethical behavior. 2o In 1994, a professional association was formed in Moscow, and on August 16, 1994, the St. Petersburg Association of Public Relations Specialists adopted a “Professional Code” that is remarkably similar to the IABC and PRSA codes. The St. Petersburg code calls for “protecting, preserving, and respecting freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and existing legislation.” It states that public relations practitioners must provide 156
Vol. 22. No. 2
Can’t We
AllJust Get Along
“objective and reliable information,” that they must not violate the fairness and objectivity of the mass media, that they must inform clients if there is a conflict of interest stemming from working for more than one client, and that they must report violations of the code to the Association. In contrast, the Code of Athens-the International Code of Ethics that applies to members of the International Public Relations Association-is much more general, avoids interpretations, and bases its moral authority on the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” which was adopted in 1948 by the United Nations General Assembly. In its simplicity, it probably is a much better starting place for understanding how we can “all get along” than are the ethics codes stamped “Made in America.”
NEW THINKING ABOUT ETHICAL CONDUCT In the past decade, analysis of the role of MNEs engaged in global communication has led to new thinking about how best to articulate basic expectations of ethical behavior. Donaldson identified 10 “minimal” human rights that can be applied or honored by all international moral agents. 21 His list does not explicitly refer to any local culture : 1.
The right to freedom of physical movement.
2.
The right to ownership of property.
3.
The right to freedom from torture.
4.
The right to a fair trial.
5.
The right to non-discriminatory
6.
The right to physical security.
7.
The right to freedom of speech and association.
8.
The right to minimal education.
9.
The right to political participation.
10.
treatment (on the basis of race or sex).
The right to subsistence.
DeGeorge suggested that despite differences in culture and values among nations, there are moral norms that can be applied to multinational enterprises. He proposed seven principles to guide MNEs in ethical conduct: 1.
MNEs should do no intentional direct harm.
2.
MNEs should produce more good than bad for the host country.
Summer 1996
157
3.
MNEs should contribute by their activities to the host country’s development.
4.
MNEs should respect the human rights of their employees.
5.
MNEs should pay their fair share of taxes.
6.
To the extent that local culture does not violate moral norms, MNEs should respect the local culture and work with it, not against it.
7.
MNEs
should
cooperate
ment and enforcement
with the local government of just background
in the develop-
institutions.22
Perhaps the first international code of ethics crafted by business leaders for business is the CAUX Round Table Principles, the result of a collaborative effort by business leaders from Japan, Europe, and the United States. The CAUX Round Table was established in 1986 in Caux-sur-Montreux, Switzerland, to bring together global business leaders to reduce trade tensions. The Principles reflect two ideals, Japan’s concept of Kyosei-living and working together for the common good-and the Western concept of human dignity.23 The Principles address the following concerns: 1.
The respo~ibi~~es of businesses (which are further outlined in a lengthy section titled “Stakeholder Principles” that specifies behaviors toward customers, employees, owners/investors, suppliers, competitors, and communities).
2.
The economic
3.
Business
behavior
4.
Respect
for rules.
5.
Support
for multilateral
6.
Respect
for the environment,
7.
Avoidance
and social impact of business. that is based on trust.
trade.
of illicit operations.
The CAUX Round Table Principles were based, in part, on the Minnesota Principles crafted by business leaders who are members of the M~esota Center for Corporate Responsibility. Bob MacGregor, president of the Center, helped draft the CAUX Round Table Principles. MacGregor says acceptance of the Principles has been widespread and that “enlightened business leaders know that all stakeholders profit under a common set of values.” To reach the skeptics, however, MacGregor believes that business leaders who subscribe to the Principles will have to show how abiding by the precepts will open markets, increase productivity, and affect the bottom line of profits positively. The Principles do not explicitly acknowledge the need to respect the cuitural diversity of each group of stakeholders -an issue MacGregor says was raised 158
Vol. 22, No. 2
Can’t We All Just Get Along
but not dealt with. With the addition of that perspective, the CAUX Round Table Principles would serve as a good model for a document of utility to MNEs as they pursue their global communications. The Principles also could and should be extended to include the ethical behavior of government, since business behaviors so often reflect compliance with the laws of home and host countries.24
CONCLUSION The question of whether or not it is possible to develop a set of ethical principles that is meaningful across cultures in the current global business and political environment raises issues about objectivity. Do standards need to take into account cultural differences of what “counts” as “moral?” Does objectivity mean that cultural differences cannot be recognized? Too often, as we noted in the introduction to this article, the debate about objectivity is reduced to a question of whether it is better to subscribe to a rigid, culturally specific value system that does not account for cultural difference (“weak objectivity”) or to subscribe to a system of “judgmental relativism” where there are no standards. A third possibility, “strong objectivity,” calls for an analysis of historically situated local beliefs-both those of “others” and those of the United States.25 By looking at U.S. generated codes of ethics from the standpoint of “others” we might begin to understand and critique our own system of values, rather than trying to impose it uncritically on others. From the perspective of “other, ” United States and other Western countries are seen as subscribing to an ethical position that values autonomy over most other principles. The individual has the privilege of ownership and autonomous action. In contrast, other cultures (including some women’s cultures in the West) value connection. This might account for the differences mentioned above between the handling of air disasters in Japan and the U.S., for example. Neither of these ethical positions accounts for the relative differences in power wielded by different countries in the world economy.26 Recent post-colonial literature suggests that issues of relative power ought to be addressed as well. A universal set of ethical principles should take into account the differing power exerted by countries and organizations in the global economy.27 Future work on international ethical principles should explore thoroughly the issue of power in the international practice of public relations. Viewing Western values from the standpoint of others may lead to the ability to create or modify universal standards that account for cultural difference by using wording that allows for flexibility in interpretation28 but does not impose ethnocentric standards.29 Such a move is consistent with the goal of “mutual understanding” that increasingly characterizes the practice of public relations in the global environment.30 American professional associations, particularly IABC and PRSA, should consider reviewing their codes of ethics from the standpoint of the “others” with whom practitioners are increasingly doing business. They should take into Summer 1996
159
Public RelationsReview
account differing cultural valuations of autonomy and connectivity as well as differences in global power. Finally, they should consider the ramifications of carrymg “codes” of “ethics” across national borders and consider instead the development of mutually agreed upon principles to guide global practice. Adoption of such practices is not only ethical, but it also might result in a move toward international cooperation-perhaps we can “get along.” Acknowledgment: The authors are indebted to Alexandre G. Nicolaev, a member of the board of directors of the Russian Public Communications Company, for providing a translation of the St. Petersburg Code. Mr. Nicolaev spent the 19951996 academic year as a visiting scholar at the Center for International Trade Development at Oklahoma State University. In a personal communication with the second author, he reported that while in the United States, he visited with Ray Gaulke and Elizabeth Allan, the top administrators of the PRSA and IABC respectively, and found “that there were more similarities than differences between us; we shared the same human values.”
NOTES 1. 2. 3. 4.
5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
11. 12. 13. 14.
160
Todd Hunt and Andrew Tirpok, “Universal Ethics Code: An Idea Whose Time Has Come,” PublicRelationsReview 19 (1993), pp. l-11. Dan Kruckeberg, ‘Universal Ethics Code: Both Possible and Feasible,” Public RelationsReview 19 (1993), pp. 21-31. Donald K. Wright, “Enforcement Dilemma: Voluntary Nature of Public Relations Codes,” Public Relations Review 19 (1993), pp. 13-20. We have chosen MNEs rather than MNCs-Multi-National Corporations-because of our belief that nonprofit groups and governmental groups face most of the issues that for-profit organizations must deal with in a global setting. James Grunig and Todd Hunt, Managing Public Relations (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1984). Geoffrey Kean, The Public RelationsMan Abroad (New York: Praeger, 1968). Marion K. Pinsdorf, “Flying Different Skies: How Cultures Respond to Airline Disasters,” Public Relations Review 17 (1991), pp. 37-56. Junk0 Taguchi, “Japanese Officials and PR Mentality,” Public Relations Quatie@ 40 (1995), pp. 31-37. David M. Grant, “Cross-Cultural Crossed Signals,” Public Relations Journal 44 (1988), p. 48. Ni Chen and Hugh M. Culbertson, “Two Contrasting Approaches of Government Public Relations in Mainland China,” Public Relations Quarterly 37 (1993), pp. 3641. Abdulrahman H. Al-Enad, “Public Relations’ Roles in Developing Countries,” Public RelationsQuartlerly 35 (1991), pp. 24-26. Benno H. Signitzer and Timothy Coombs, “Public Relations and Public Diplomacy: Conceptual Convergences”Public Relations Rmiew 18 (1992), pp. 137-147. Melvin L. Sharpe, “The Impact of Social and Cultural Conditioning on Global Public Relations,” Public Relations Repiav 18 (1992), pp. 103-107. Geoffrey L. Martin, ‘West Unraveling Mysteries of Culture,” Advertis&& Age International (Oct. 16, 1995), pp. 115-116. Vol. 22, No. 2
Can’t We All Just Get Along
15. 16. 17. 18.
19. 20.
21. 22.
23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.
30.
Carl Botan, “International Public Relations: Critique and Reformulation,” Public Relations Review 18 (1992), pp. 149-159. Larissa A. Grunig, ‘Strategic Public Relations Constituencies on a Global Scale,” Public Relations Repiew 18 (1992), pp. 127-136. Jon Kalina, “ ‘Vive la Difference’: Learning Trade North of 49th Parallel,” Advertising&eI&rnational (Sept. 18, 1995), pp. 123, 130. Dana Milbank and Marcus W. Brauchli, “Greasing Wheels: How U.S. Concerns Compete in Countries Where Bribes Flourish,” The Wall Street Journal (Sept. 29, 1995), p. Al. Editors, “Governance Goes Global,” Inside PR V (1995), pp. 18-20. Alexandre G. Nikolaev and A.G. Gorgin, “The Value of a PR Association to Russians,” International Association of Business Communicators Communication World 12 (1995), pp. 7-9. Thomas Donaldson, The Ethics of International Business (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989) R.T. DeGeorge, “Ethical Dilemmas for Multinational Enterprises: A Philosophical Overview.” In Hoffman, Lange and Fedo (Eds.) Ethics and the Multinational Enterprise: Proceedings of the Sixth National Conference on Business Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), pp. 39-46. Joe Skelly, “The Rise of International Ethics,” Business Ethics, unnumbered reprint. MacGregor was interviewed by one of the authors in August 1995. Sandra Harding, whose Science? Whose Kizowledge? (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1991). Seyla Benhabib, Situating the Self Gender, Comma&~ and Postmoderrkm in Contemporay Ethics (New York: Routledge, 1992). Edward Said, Orientalism (New York: Routledge, 1978). Eric Eisenberg, “‘Ambiguity as Strategic Organizational Communication,” Communication Momgraphs 51 (1984), pp. 227-242. Heddy R. Dexter, Kathy Drew, Jolanta A. Drzewiecka, Barbara M. Gayle, Dreama G. Moon, Sami Reist, Richard A. Rogers, Nancy L. Roth, Michelle T. Violanti, and Kathleen Wong, “Reconceptualizing Identity and Agency in Communication Theory,” paper presented at the Speech Communication Association Annual Conference, San Antonio, TX, 1995. James Grunig and Todd Hunt, op. cit.
Summer 1996
161