Tim Traverse Healy - The Global Alliance Protocol
Presentation delivered at the World Public Relations Festival
Rome, 20 June 2003

As far back as my professional memory runs – 1947 – we have been talking together about codes of conduct and behaviour; about codes of ethics. The British Institute first adopted its code in 1951and, immediately following CERP, IPRA, their “Code of Athens” in 1961. I drafted the PR Consultants Association charter in 1992 which was later adopted by the International Consultants Organisation. I first spoke on a public platform on the matter public relations ethics fifty years ago.

On average I have been invited every ten years since to speak in one country or another on the same subject so perhaps I may be forgiven if I feel a slight sense of "déjà vu”! But no matter, because as we are so fond of telling ourselves "a code is a living thing subject to constant change”. And since public relations is essentially a situational discipline then frequent up-dates are only right and proper to reflect the fast moving environment in which we as practitioners live and work

But here today I want to suggest that over the years our discussions on this topic have focused primarily on commercial and operational matters - our relationship with employers and clients, and intermediaries and the media. And if we have not entirely ignored, we at best have only paid lip service to the more fundamental aspects of our vocation namely our own relationships within the communities of which we also are members and arguably exist to serve.

Today I have little or no worries on the first score - professional and commercial practices - because I note that sooner or later we always manage to get things right. But on the second count - our societal value and social values I am deeply concerned as to our record of behaviour as a group over the setting, monitoring, and policing of our profession's moral, cultural, and civic obligations.

We must now and urgently look outwards to the general public and our stakeholders rather than inwards towards ourselves and our associates. Allow me therefore to make a couple of personal assertions so that all here may consider individually their own viewpoint and position:

Firstly to be accurately described as "public relations" an activity must possess in more or less equal measure three basic elements – Truth, Concern for Public Interest (“pro bono publico”) and Dialogue. Otherwise we are engaged, probably quite legitimately , in publicity or propaganda. For communications "at" rather that communications “with” is a negation of our public relations craft which is neither an art or a science but rather a philosophy, a mind set, that dictates that what people really think truly matters.

Secondly I suggest that if as a group we did not exist then contemporary society would have had to invent us because we exist in direct response to five major post World War II trends:

1. The public demand for more and more information.
2. Increased awareness of the “interdependence” phenomena and the social impact of corporate decisions and actions.
3. The call to recognise, analyse, and address stakeholder conflict.
4. The worldwide paradigm shift away from “Institutalism” towards "Individualism".
5. The emergence of the vast range of new media, really personal, instantly available, and fully accessible.

Since in the face of these imperatives society currently seems prepared to value our contribution so it is implicit that as a group we do possess and enjoy societal value. But I submit that we will only continue to retain society's mandate if we now are seen clearly to promulgate and more importantly adhere in practice to certain values as perceived by the wider community.

I have every confidence that over the years we will continue to express in our various codes high standards of behaviour as regards our relationships with colleagues, competitors, employees, employers and clients for in such matters it is much easier to be absolute in principle and vigorous in policing. But whilst “Dialogue" as such is a tangible - for it is either taking place or it is not and in any event can be measured – I am fully aware that values such as “Truth” and “public good” and "social interest” are not absolutes but rather variables and therefore open to personal interpretation and deliberation.

But such differences and difficulties of interpretation should not deter us from debating or addressing such issues corporately in our various countries more publicly and more forcibly. Indeed if we do not then Society will withdraw the mandate it has presently granted us for as we are so fond of telling our clients and our employers we too only exist by common consent. And if we too do not conform verbally and actively to societal norms regarding such matters as accountability, transparency, governance, privacy, empowerment, confidentiality, and manipulative methodology then as a group and as individual practitioners we will fast lose public trust, confidence and credibility.

The argument that like doctors who have patients and like lawyers we have clients and that their interests are paramount is no longer tenable because in the court of public opinion the people are both judges and juries and similarly in addition to being advocates we are forced by situations and events into being judge and jury also. Therefore those who we are prepared to advise, act or work for, assumes great social importance because unlike those medicos we are not treating patients within an accepted body of knowledge and unlike lawyers we are not operating within a codified arena wherin the public has already formally expressed its wishes.

Should any one for example be prepared knowingly to represent an anti-social corporation? A repressive regime? A front for criminal interests? A secretive organisation? A rigger of markets? A environmental polluter? A law breaker? The list could go on.

But the defence that we are not principals in the action but only agents will not hold water.

Corporate ethics in the final event are the sum total of individual consciences and at heart we are all aware of the differences between right and wrong in our field of endeavour

lf the truth is not being told;
lf the cause is not just;
lf the methods applied are manipulative;

then we are faced not only with a crisis of personal conscience but also with the potential for a crisis of public confidence.

Take for example the current debate about "Spin Doctors”. Obviously we consider lying by commission to be wrong but what about lying by omission? So many omissions that an unbalanced picture of the organisation represented is presented. By consistently accentuating the positive and eliminating the negative a totally misleading even distorted image is created. And what about timing? Choosing the time for the release of information or the taking of an action for reasons of disguise rather than transparency. Or the deliberate de-selection rather than the selection of an audience to be targeted? The powerful effect of third party endorsement? The cumulative effect of the release of a series of deftly slanted stories or gently biased information or steady drip drip of stories featuring the same theme?

Because we are professionals we are fully aware of the dramatic effect such orchestration tactics can have on public attitudes and popular opinions. Because of our expertise we know that moral philosophy can be raided and comforting words can be misappropriated and invested with different or false values. Because of our experience we also know that in the long term such tactics do not succeed because the public will only be fooled for so long even though in a short time a great deal of harm can be done. Harm to the credibility of public figures and the undermining of confidence in our institutions.

If then we know individually what is right and wrong and together we recognise what is malpractice then what are we doing to expose and punish it? Are our disciplinary procedures sufficiently effective?

What are we doing to elicit the help of academics to help us research and lawyers to help us legislate?

It has been suggested in some quarters in some countries that schemes of state certification or registration would provide the means of obviating malpractice in our work. But this would be a snare and a delusion. A delusion because free information is the handmaiden of free expression which in turn together with dialogue is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society. A snare because if a government is in a position to certify or register then it is also in a position to withdraw that right!

Like the media in general and journalists in particular we must retain our independence being part of the chain essential to the free flow of information. But then we must accept the fact that on the other side of the “freedom” coin is written “responsibility”.

In this instance responsibility for effective self regulation.

Whatever the outcome of the battle taking place within our ranks between the proponents of "commercialism" versus the supporters of “professionalism”, we all need the respect, support and confidence of the general public in all our countries.

In my view the respect of the very people to whom we owe an over-riding responsibility. In the ultimate a responsibility which is paramount to that we obviously owe towards our employers and our clients.

I believe that the means of promoting and protecting our chosen vocation is for us to guard our values and to be seen publicly to be doing so by policing our craft and exposing, if we can not always punish, wrongdoers.

lf worldwide we so do then we will not only possess a history but enjoy a glorious future and those of us here today will forthwith be able to look our many students, employees, employers and clients straight in the eye.

ENDS