Assignment3 Campaign Critique for Youtube

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business Ethics.

http://www.jstor.org

Public Relations and Corporate Social Responsibility: Some Issues Arising Author(s): Jacquie L'Etang Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 13, No. 2 (Feb., 1994), pp. 111-123 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25072512 Accessed: 19-07-2015 02:15 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 149.171.67.164 on Sun, 19 Jul 2015 02:15:44 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Public Relations and Corporate Social

Responsibility: Some Issues Arising jacquie L'Etang

ABSTRACT. The paper questions current

assumptions

about the benefits of corporate social responsibility and the

claims that corporations make on behalf of their corporate

social responsibility programmes. In particular, the paper

suggests that the use of corporate social responsibility for

public relations ends raises moral

problems over the motiva

tion of corporations. The paper cautions that the justifica tions which corporations employ may either be immoral

or

inaccurate with regard to the empirical evidence gained

from a small-scale qualitative study

carried out in the UK at

a time when the practice

of corporate social responsibility was expanding quickly (1989). It is noticeable, in retrospect,

that great emphasis is

placed upon environmental rather

than social responsibility. This implies that organisations are

primarily reactive in their

development of corporate social

responsibility programmes and that

they respond to external

pressures rather than working out the nature of their cor

porate responsibilities. It

might suggest that

corporations

only take such actions when they feel compelled to do so by consumerist and environmentalist lobbies. The paper argues

that corporations do need to find moral justifications for

their moral activities and to ensure that corporate social

responsibility practice lives up to the claims made by public relations

practitioners. The paper explores

the nature of

public relations arid illustrates how its

responsibility for

corporate social responsibility extends

beyond truthfulness

in publicity.

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to examine the links

Jacquie L'Etang has

postgraduate degrees in

history, public relations,

and social justice.

She is a lecturer in public

relations at the

University of Stirling, Scotland, teaching on the M.Sc. in Public

Relations full-time

and distance learning

courses. She teaches

design and editorial management, communications, and business

ethics. Her research interests are in corporate social responsibility

and the history of public relations.

between corporate social responsibility and public relations from an ethical perspective, and

to question

current assumptions. In America, corporate social

responsibility has long been seen as a

practice which

benefits both society and business and, increasingly, this view is predominating

in the UK where the

majority of corporate social responsibility pro

grammes were begun in the 1980s. Because of this

perception of benefit to

society through mutually beneficial programmes initiated by business, little, if

any attention has been paid to the ethical under

pinning of such corporate social responsibility pro

grammes. This paper takes up that challenge and

offers a Kantian critique of the current

practice of corporate social responsibility and, particularly, of the role that public relations plays

in its imple mentation.

The paper begins by discussing definitions and

the role and scope of public relations and then goes on to discuss in some detail its relationship with

corporate social responsibility. The premiss of the

paper is that public relations and corporate social

responsibility are not separate activities which

should be evaluated separately but that all too often

the two activities are interconnected in such a way that corporate social responsibility becomes

a tool

for public relations. Once one is clear about this

relationship, it is possible to

analyse the moral

implications entailed.

Small-scale empirical research was carried out in

the UK in 1989 to review existing practice. Twelve

major companies in the consumer and industrial

sectors known to be active in the field were ap

proached individually for information about their

activities in the field. Questions were not structured

as a formal questionnaire because many of the

companies approached had participated at a recent

conference at the University of Stirling and so in

Journal of Business Ethics 13: 111-123, 1994.

? 1994 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

This content downloaded from 149.171.67.164 on Sun, 19 Jul 2015 02:15:44 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

112 Jacquie UEtang

many cases the researcher already had some knowl

edge of companies' activities in the field and the

purpose of the questions was to

probe and seek

deeper evaluative information about particular

aspects of programmes. Statistically the sample was

both small and unrepresentative ?

only companies known to be active in the field were approached. Some supplementary telephone interviews

were also

conducted. The following is a representative sample

of questions asked:

How and why did the company develop a

corporate social responsibility programme? How does the company decide how much to

give and how does it decide whether to

give in

cash or kind? Is the corporate social responsibility pro

gramme closely related to other public rela

tions policies? To what extent is the corporate social respon

sibility programme determined by judgements about which policy will achieve maximum

goodwill as

opposed to

judgements regarding the benefit for the recipient?

How do you decide between competing recip ients?

How does the company evaluate its pro

gramme? What sort of publicity has the company

received and how has it achieved this?

How much publicity does the programme receive?

How important is media coverage to the

internal justification of the programme?

The questions were

designed to elicit information

about the organization's rationale in undertaking

corporate social responsibility, its commitment and

evaluation procedures. It was hoped that the replies

would give an indication of the moral sensibility of

the organization as

judged by the nature and extent

of the communication about moral issues that took

place within the organization. A further source of

useful information was the various promotional brochures and leaflets produced by companies about

their social programmes. These were

subsequently monitored for changes and additions.

It was from

these that a number of themes emerged for analysis, some of which are discussed in this paper. While the

research results are not reported directly, the find

ings informed the scope and direction of this paper.

The role of public relations: definitions and

debates

There are literally hundreds of definitions of public relations, perhaps because the role of public relations

has evolved so rapidly in recent

history. It is now

increasingly becoming, and being seen as, a man

agement function. Definitions of public relations

summarise the activity as

planned, deliberate com

munication directed towards target publics with the

purpose of achieving an

'understanding'. The notion

of mutuality and the role of the public relations

practitioner as conduit for effective communication

are key,

since they challenge the perception of public relations as a manipulative operation. Most defini

tions locate public relations practitioners in the

service of management in organisations but also

bearing wider responsibilities,

. . . The world needs a group of communicators and

interpreters . . . who can

explain the

goals and methods

of organisations,

individuals and governments to others

in a socially responsible

manner. Equally,

these inter

preters must

provide their

employers with

knowledge of

what others are thinking,

to guide

them in setting

their

policies wisely for the common good. This two-way

responsibility is a

challenging aspect of the

public rela

tions practitioner's

role . . }

Such a definition implies a close relationship with

senior management in which the public relations

practitioner counsels management with regard to the

external perceptions of the organization. These

perceptions can be classified into key issues and

'publics' and prioritized according to their impor

tance to the organization. The term 'public' in this

context defines a homogenous group within a

heterogenous society which has something in com

mon such as their involvement with, or sensitivity to, a particular issue.2 The role

of public relations is

to identify such groups and the

nature of the rela

tionships the organisation has with them.

The public relations practitioner must scan ex

ternal and internal environments to determine the

connections his or her organization makes and then

This content downloaded from 149.171.67.164 on Sun, 19 Jul 2015 02:15:44 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Public Relations and Corporate Social Responsibility 113

has also to determine ways of analysing how the

organization is perceived through these

connections.

Understanding the views and orientation of a poten

tial 'receiver' of information is central to persuasive communication. By performing

such an analytical role the public relations practitioner

becomes valu

able to senior management and thus moves into the

'counselling' role most

closely associated with the

public affairs function. In this way public relations

is

performing a very different role to the commonly

perceived notion of the media relations practitioner

who simply distributes information after a decision

has been taken at a higher level. However, the

increased status and influence of public relations

does imply increased responsibility because of the

greater chance to influence and shape communica

tions and, indeed, policy. Such developments have already

been acknowl

edged and some definitions do suggest

a specific

ethical responsibility for the role of public relations

towards society. For example, the Public Relations

Society of America's (PRSA) Task Force on the

Stature and Role of Public Relations formulation

emphasised concepts of mutuality and social obliga

tion in the following words:

. . . Public relations is a means for the public to have its

desires and interests felt by the institutions in our society.

It interprets and speaks for the public to otherwise

unresponsive organizations, as well as

speaking for those

organisations to the

public . . .

. . . Public relations is a means to achieve mutual adjust

ment between institutions and groups establishing

smoother relationships that benefit the public

. . .

. . . Public relations personnel can

help activate the

organization's social conscience. . .3

Other definitions are more demanding and explicit

regarding public relations' moral obligation

to society, for instance,

. . . Public relations . . . defines and emphasises the

responsibility of

management to serve the

public interest

4

Such a definition implies a substantial ethical role

beyond that of advocate or

representative for a

particular organization. It implies an

objective stance

and adherence to a professional set of ethics designed

to maximise the public good. One of the ways it

might be argued that public relations practitioners meet these obligations

is through programmes of

corporate social responsibility. Hence, it is vital for

my purpose in this paper to focus on the interface

between public relations and corporate social respon

sibility and to establish whether a distinction can, in

fact, be drawn between them: if this is not feasible

then it may well be the case that criticism of the

morality of one venture

invariably implicates the

other.

It may be argued that corporate social responsi

bility and public relations are two separate actions

which should be evaluated independently. For exam

ple, one

major financial institution separates the

functions in that it has charitable foundations to

which it contributes but the work of these is not

managed or

publicised by the institution. However,

this is the exception rather than the rule. Corporate social responsibility is often managed by public relations practitioners for public relations ends and

therefore corporate social responsibility is seen as

part of the public relations portfolio and a

technique to establish relations with particular groups (for

example in the local community) and to

signal

messages to other groups in society. For example, one

major oil company contacted stated that,

. . . media coverage is not

important ? we

prefer to make

sure that the right people

i.e. those of influence in the

community know of our activities. . .5

Another oil company, writing about its own

activities reported that,

... X evaluates its corporate social responsibility pro

grammes by setting clear criteria for each project

. . .

criteria include target audience, aims of scheme, time

schedule and visibility for X . . .6

A representative of Kingfisher, the UK

holding

company has written of their activities that,

... we are very clear about the target audience

we are

trying to reach through our social responsibility policies

ancl programmes ... we focus very clearly

on a number

of issues to ensure that we make an impact

rather than

trying to cover the whole field ... in our corporate

programme and our different

operating companies we

attempt to build up a leadership position in particular

This content downloaded from 149.171.67.164 on Sun, 19 Jul 2015 02:15:44 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

114 Jacquie L'Etang

areas which amount to a 'competitive edge'

with target

audiences. . 7

Consequently, public relations practitioners may be

responsible for proposing corporate social responsi

bility activities and identifying the relevant 'publics'. In other words public relations practitioners may be

directly involved in

policy formulation and therefore

partially responsible for corporate social responsi

bility programmes. It is not, therefore a

question of

the corporate management choosing a

policy of

corporate social responsibility (say of community

activities) and then the public relations person

communicating the policy or actions. This would

assume a definition of public relations as a set of

communications techniques. However, the latter

perception of the public relations role is quite common and is dependent

on a particular view

about the role and nature of public relations. I shall

now explore the

reasons for this view and put it in

historical context before going on to argue that it is

an outdated concept which also allows public rela

tions to escape from its responsibilities. I shall then

go on to pursue in detail the role of public relations

in corporate social responsibility and explain why I

think ethical problems arise.

The nature of public relations

One of the key issues in public relations is that of the

direction of the communication and the extent to

which this informs, shapes or

manipulates those who

receive the communication. In order to distinguish

public relations from propaganda some writers8 have

focused on the concept of two-way communication

as that which distinguishes public relations from

propaganda. This theoretical concept expresses both

the role of public relations and also its state of

historical development not

only in different organi zations but in different actions/campaigns.

Grunig and Hunt9 have developed a

typology which explains different models

of public relations

in terms of the historical development of the function.

These are press agentry/publicity, public informa

tion, two-way asymmetric and two-way symmetric.

The last two definitions express the relationship between an organization and its publics entirely

in

terms of the type and direction of communication

flow. Of particular significance to corporate social

responsibility, however, is what the models imply

about the nature and purpose of the communication

process both in directional terms and also in terms of

verity. The

press-agentry/publicity role is defined in

Grunig and Hunt's typology as

being one-way communication which serves a propaganda function

relying on half-truths and exaggeration

to propagate a

particular belief. Examples of the results of this

type of public relations appear in tabloid newspapers in the UK and are often achieved by publicists

in the

UK for would-be 'stars'. Such publicity can

rightly be called 'puffery'. Grunig and Hunt categorise this

role as propaganda

since complete truth is not

regarded as essential by those who practise this form

of public relations.

The purpose of the public information model is

to disseminate information in the way that govern ment or

non-profit organizations might about their

activities. In this model truthfulness is of importance but the flow of information is one-way.

The two-way asymmetric model is so-called

because it attempts to incorporate concepts of feed

back into its framework so that the source can adapt its message more appropriately

to the receiver(s). As

Grunig and Hunt point out, while,

. . . practitioners of

this model claim to advocate the

public's view inside the

organization, generally the

only

way they do that is by telling management what the

public will accept. They

do not tell management how to

change to

please the

public . . .10

The two-way symmetric model is characterised by

dialogue between an

organization and its publics in

an attempt to achieve mutual understanding. It

implies change both in the organization and in its

public.11 Public relations can be seen to be a dynamic func

tion and this quality is illustrated in the following definition:

. . . Public relations is a distinctive management function

which helps establish and maintain mutual lines of com

munication, understanding, acceptance and

co-operation

between an organization

and its publics;

involves the

management of problems or issues; helps management

to

keep informed on and

responsive to

public opinion . . .

helps management to keep abreast of and effectively

This content downloaded from 149.171.67.164 on Sun, 19 Jul 2015 02:15:44 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Public Relations and Corporate Social Responsibility 115

utilize change, serving

as an early warning system

to help

anticipate trends; and uses research and ethical com

munication techniques

as its principal

tools . . }2

The concept of fluidity has been important to

public relations theory since systems theory has been

applied to the function as a fundamental concept.

A systems perspective sees the organization inter

relating with a number of different interrelated and

interacting environments (and publics) to which the

organization must

adapt and accommodate to main

tain homeostasis. For example, corporate social

responsibility can be seen as a result of organizations

responding to criticisms of corporations in the late

'60s and early '70s.13

In systems terminology, public relations can be

seen as an adaptive subsystem within the organiza

tion functioning

as communicator between the envi

ronment and the organization and helping the

organization to

adjust and adapt to its environ

ment.14 This concept of public relations highlights the tension in the public relations role because again it does suggest that the public relations function

must serve the organization first and not 'the public

good'. However, it goes some way to explain (a) why

different models of the public relations function can

be identified and (b) the difficulties entailed in

establishing concepts of ethical practice in public relations.

Corporate social responsibility and public relations

Corporate social responsibility has become impor tant to

public relations because such programmes offer the opportunity

to build good will by pro

moting the benefits of the company to its stake

holders. 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 port folio 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 responsi

bility 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 rela

tions and that some of the contradictions in cor

porate 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 emanat

ing 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.

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 im

pressing 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 rela

tionship 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 moti

vation of the company with regard to its stated

intention and its commitment to the project must be

This content downloaded from 149.171.67.164 on Sun, 19 Jul 2015 02:15:44 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

116 Jacquie L'Etang

questioned. This is at the crux of the moral problem

which lies at the centre of corporate social responsi

bility. Corporate social responsibility itself is poten

tially 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 acknowl

edges and communicates its self-interest the public

relations is being truthful (and could be defined as

the public information model) but it is not sym

metrical 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 responsi

bility 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'.15

The small-scale research which I undertook sug

gested a varied rationale for undertaking pro

grammes 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. . .16

... 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 . . .17

. . . 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 pro

grammes which were developed were very definitely

influenced by government, particularly

our early

em

phasis on job creation schemes for young people in the

mid-1980s. . .18

... 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 . . .19

. . . because industry

is intrinsically part

of the com

munity, its every action will affect the wider community

. . . our community affairs programme

is based upon

enlightened self-interest and a

recognition of the inter

dependence of the company and the community.

. P

'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 recendy

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 . . .21

. . . Companies

. . . can at least take their place alongside

the many other organizations working to

improve condi

tions in the wider community

. . . the process is part of

business' licence to operate . . P

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 cleanli

ness . . P

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 obliga

tions to shareholders, employees, customers and sup

pliers. As well as

creating wealth from the

supply of our

products and

offering skills, training and centres of

This content downloaded from 149.171.67.164 on Sun, 19 Jul 2015 02:15:44 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Public Relations and Corporate Social Responsibility 117

excellence, the jT2 billion we have paid in taxes in the last

two years represents a substantial contribution to the

economic well-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.24

Business' justification of corporate social respon

sibility 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 respon

sibility should be judged by its beneficial effects in society: in these cases, it is the ends which

are

important, not the means.25 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.26

There is also some terminological confusion in

some of the literature. 'Corporate philanthropy',

'corporate responsibility', and 'corporate social re

sponsibility' are often used interchangeably.

How

ever, 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, sug

gests 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 tak

ing an active role in corporate contributions, designing

publicity campaigns and promotions around programs of

charitable giving.27

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.28

For example, one book written for a business audi

ence 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. . P

What I want to suggest here is that this approach is

ethically unsound and, indeed, can

nullify the ap

parent 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 evalua

tion 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.30 Economic goals are social and political goals.

To measure corporate social responsibility only

in terms of its potential

This content downloaded from 149.171.67.164 on Sun, 19 Jul 2015 02:15:44 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

118 Jacquie L'Etang

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.

Alternative justifications of corporate social

responsibility

A commonly-used phrase

in corporate justification of corporate social responsibility

is 'enlightened self

interest' implying that both the corporation and the

community benefit from corporate social responsi

bility in accordance with crude utilitarian principles of 'the greatest good

of the greatest number'. This

justification suggests the recipient's benefit is seen as

being of equal value to the benefit accruing

to the

company either through ensuring a healthier eco

nomic environment in which the company operates or in terms of improved image and competitive edge for the company. However, it might be argued that

the phrase 'mutual self-interest' implies a far more

equal relationship based on

equal exchange than is

usually the case in corporate social responsibility in

the UK. For example, donors choose beneficiaries,

activities and the amount of money, resources and

length of commitment so that the recipient has little

role to play in the decision-making process which

determines the nature of the programme i.e. their

autonomy may not be realized. Corporate social

responsibility programmes may thus be justified

on

grounds of mutual benefit while largely motivated

by self-interest.

The corporation motivated by self-interest is

unlikely to

give full consideration to the needs and

interests of a recipient. The company's perception of

these needs is likely to be distorted by its primarily

self-interested motivation. In such cases the relation

ship with the recipient is thus exploitative because

what is important for the corporation is what the

recipient can do for the corporation (in

terms of

contributing to their corporate social responsibility

profile/portfolio, promotional brochures and press

releases) not what the company can do for the

recipient as defined and evaluated by the recipient.

It

might be argued that lack of concern for the

recipient and failure to take account of their evalua

tion is not of significance if the recipients benefited

at all, though I would still argue that the company

will not have an accurate impression of the value of

the benefit unless they consult the recipients. The

companies I studied did not evaluate their corporate social responsibility programmes by taking

account

of the views of former recipients. The concept of self-interestedness is worth ex

ploring in the context of corporate social responsi

bility because, while it is a

quality criticized by moralists (as opposed

to moral philosophers), it is

also regarded as an essential part of human make-up

to ensure survival. The economic argument seeks to

persuade us that because all people

are naturally self

interested only self-interested actions can

produce social benefits and only self-interest

is justified. Such

arguments follow Adam Smith and Milton Fried

man. Smith argued that,

. . . the pursuit

of individual self-gain

in the market place

would lead to economic common good

because the greed

of sellers would be constrained by the greed of their rivals

and of buyers. Competing greed would operate as an

'invisible hand' to force all traders to produce and sell at

the lowest price and thereby utilise resources most effi

ciently.31

Laissez-faire capitalism is justified by utilitarian

arguments that only under this system is the com

mon good given sufficient weight and

can good

to

society be maximised. The capitalist utilitarian con

ception of the common

good is of an individualist

society where freedom is maximised through the

independent accumulation of individual satisfaction

and government (and government regulation) is

minimized. A key work in this field remains Fried

man32 who was responsible for sparking off the

debate about corporate social responsibility. Fried

man argues that business is socially responsible in its

profit-making function and he sees altruistic acts

carried out on behalf of business as a violation of

business' function and obligations (which are

purely

economic). Friedman does not seem to think that

This content downloaded from 149.171.67.164 on Sun, 19 Jul 2015 02:15:44 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Public Relations and Corporate Social Responsibility 119

corporate social responsibility can be justified

on

grounds other than self-interest, even if it is in the

corporation's long-term interest. Friedman's argu

ment is a bit confusing. On the one hand he argues

that actions done in the long-term interest of the

company should not be rationalized as corporate social responsibility but simply justified for what

they are ? actions which promote the company's

interests. Yet he also argues that if it is in the long term interest of companies

to cloak their intentions

in this way to further their self-interest then that is

also acceptable.

... To illustrate, it may well be in the long-run interest

of a corporation that is a

major employer in a small

community to devote resources to

providing amenities to

that community

or to improving

its government. That

may make it easier to attract desirable

employees, it may

reduce the wage bill, or lessen losses from

pilferage and

sabotage or have other worthwhile effects . . .

... It would be inconsistent of me to call on corporate

executives to refrain from this hypocritical window

dressing because it harms the foundations of a free

society. That would be to call on them to exercise 'social

responsibility'. If our institutions, and the attitudes of the

public make it in their self-interest to cloak their actions

in this way, I cannot summon much

indignation to

denounce them. At the same time, I can express admira

tion for those . . . who disdain such tactics as approaching

fraud. . .33

Hirshleifer also takes a Smithian line when he

argues that the ethical value of free-market capi talism lies in its ability, through engendering

com

petition, to

'give the public what it wants at the

lowest attainable price'34 and that, 'the true

principle is to associate self-interest with public interest'.35

Because of this traditional view, businesses have

sought to

justify corporate social responsibility in

terms of self-interest and do so in one of two ways. Either they will argue that contributing

to their local

community ensures that the community thrives and

therefore will retain the ability to pay for the

corporation's goods/services or that corporate social

responsibility will create such a good impression that

a resource of good will will be established which can

be drawn on should the corporation suffer a crisis or

need to lobby. Recent research done in the UK

which surveyed over 800 companies found that the

main reason companies were

undertaking corporate

social responsibility was, '. . . the need to preserve

the corporate image.'36 The director of the research, Dr. David Clutterbuck then went on to say that he

thought that this justification was '. . . not quite

so

self-serving as one

might have expected.'37 It is

possible to argue that the morality of this

sort of

motivation is questionable. Hirshleifer argues that all humans are necessarily

selfish though it is not clear whether he means

psychologically or

philosophically egoistic. There is a

distinction to be made between these two types of

justification which is that philosophical or ethical

egoism constitutes a moral justification whereas

psychological egoism is an explanation of human

behaviour. Ethical egoism argues that the agent ought to be selfish and that altruism is only justified if it

ultimately serves the agent's ends i.e. altruism is

immoral unless it is in the agent's long-term interest.

This is the position taken by some of those who take

part in corporate social responsibility policies. For

example, a

representative from the public relations

company Pielle, taking part in a conference on

corporate social responsibility commented,

. . . Let me express a little

personal concern at

something

you said just now. You were

surprised that there had

been little discussion about social responsibility actions

that brought

no benefit to the company. I felt no concern

or surprise

at that because any company has under law a

responsibility to its shareholders to act in the best

interests of the business and its private shareholders. If

you are

just giving things away for the sake of a warm

feeling, I am sure the shareholders would send you

to a

hot bath as a quicker and more comfortable way of

getting it.38

Psychological egoism argues that agents cannot

help being selfish, i.e. it is intrinsic to the nature of

personhood. This raises questions over the extent of

free will which individuals may exert to over-ride

pre-determined biological inclinations and drives.

Psychological egoism might suggest that altruism for

the benefit of other agents is out of the ordinary and can be explained by

some hidden motive of

self-interest. This distinction clarifies whether the

motivation behind an action is behavioural (psycho

logical) or moral (philosophical) and it is important to this paper because it is argued that the motivation

behind corporate social responsibility will be shown

to be of the greatest significance in

determining its

This content downloaded from 149.171.67.164 on Sun, 19 Jul 2015 02:15:44 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

120 Jacquie L'Etang

moral worth. Friedman's position on this point is not

entirely clear because he seems to conflate justifica

tions so that he appears to say that egoism is both

natural and morally justifiable. It looks as

though Friedman's argument is based on principles of

ethical egoism and he does suggest that for a

company to act contrary to its economic self-interest

is immoral.

As the examples cited earlier showed, a common

justification for corporate social responsibility is

broadly utilitarian in structure. Utilitarians judge

actions by their consequences and their contribution

to the general happiness. The utilitarian capitalist will argue that everyone will be better off in the long run, if, in the short term, capitalists

are allowed to

accumulate capital for future re-investment. It could

be argued that programmes of corporate social

responsibility are an

example of such a benefit, since

thriving capitalists may feel more inclined to afford

such programmes. If corporations do not consult

former beneficiaries it will be hard for a company

apparently inspired by the utilitarian philosophy to

prove their claims and calculate the benefits. Such a

company will be proceeding on the basis of assump

tions, not fact. It is therefore suggested that a

utilitarian justification for corporate social respon

sibility fails if the utilitarian does not attempt to

evaluate the effects of programmes in society, for

example by seeking the views of recipients. A utili

tarian approach to corporate social responsibility

does not recognize the rights and responsibilities of companies except in

so far as they maximize

happiness. A utilitarian approach is not focused on

concepts of just relationships with particular stake

holders and their rights. Utilitarians may argue that

motivation is irrelevant and that doing right acts is

sufficient and sets a good example in itself. This view

may be challenged on the grounds that people who

are well motivated are more likely to act

morally, whereas those who are focused on consequences may

only do what is

right because it fits in with their own

ends at the time. An alternative approach defines

goodness as intrinsic to an act. This sort of approach

is derived from Kant who held that the only good

thing that is good without qualification or restriction

is a good will. The moral worth of an act is judged

by asking whether the individual is

willing for the

act to become a universal law. Kant's view was that

goodness is praiseworthy and that

a right

act is that

done by an agent because he or she ought to, recog

nizes it as a universal law and does it out of duty and

conformity to the universal law.

A Kantian approach to corporate social responsi

bility will be concerned with the intrinsic nature of

the act and the motivation for the action, i.e.

whether it is done out of a sense of duty or

pruden

tially, for reasons of self-interest. On Kantian

grounds many corporate social responsibility pro

grammes would be judged as

lacking in moral worth

because they are done for self-interested or pruden

tial reasons.

... A human action is morally good,

not because it is

done from immediate inclination ?

still less because it is

done from self-interest ?

but because it is done from the

sake of duty.

. ,39

Kant distinguished between generous actions done

through an

impulse of sympathy and those done out

of duty. He attributed the action done out of duty

with moral worth because the action arose from a

rational process and included an understanding of

obligation and duty. Kant still recognized the moral

benefit of generous inclinations as supportive in

doing good actions but argued that they

must be

consciously cultivated. From this he derived his

formal principle of duty that,

. . . An action done from duty

has its moral worth not

from the result it attains or seeks to attain, but from a

formal principle

or maxim ?

the principle

of doing

one's

duty whatever that may be

. . .40

This is consistent with an approach which recognizes the rights of

certain stakeholder groups in relation to

the activities of an organization and its concomitant

responsibilities. Another part of Kant's philosophy which is

particularly relevant to moral issues in corporate

social responsibility relates to moral considerations

within the context of human relationships. His key

principle or

imperative here was called 'The For

mula of the End in Itself,

. . . Act in such a way that you always treat

humanity, whether in your

own person

or in the person of any

other, never simply as a means, but always

at the same

times as an end . . .41

Kant argued that

it was wrong to use people as a

means to an end for one's own purposes and that one

This content downloaded from 149.171.67.164 on Sun, 19 Jul 2015 02:15:44 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Public Relations and Corporate Social Responsibility 121

had an obligation to treat

people with care and

respect having regard for each individual's subjective definition of his or her aims and objectives in life; in

other words, respect for each individual's autonomy. It is important to corporate social responsibility for

two reasons. First, because it brings out how benefi

ciaries can be used as a means to the end of improv

ing the company's image and secondly, because the

relationship between donor and recipient may be

intrinsically unjust because of the corporation's failure to take account of the individual's wishes, i.e.

they fail to

recognize the individual's autonomy and

to treat the recipient with respect as an individual in

his or her own right.

On a Kantian account, motivation in corporate social responsibility is identified

as paramount in

determining the worthiness of such programmes and

empirical evidence suggests that business is often not

well motivated. It is suggested that this may lead to

the development of an

exploitative relationship between donor and recipient. In particular, it is

suggested that business' own utilitarian justification

of corporate social responsibility fails where business

does not attempt to evaluate the effects of pro

grammes in society and in particular, to take account

of the viewpoint of the recipient. None of the com

panies approached in the small sample were able to

supply methodologies which met these criteria: only

media coverage and influencing key publics were

mentioned. It is therefore argued that a Kantian

approach based on ideas of duty and obligation

can

avoid some of the problems of immorality which

arise from the traditional utilitarian approach. A

moral evaluation of effects might exclude corporate

good will benefits and media coverage from the

policy formulation and the post-programme evalua

tion and concentrate on the benefits to recipients and society.

Problems for public relations

The view put forward above poses some difficult

questions for public relations practitioners. In public relations terms the decision to develop and publicize

programmes of corporate social responsibility is

analogous to that to change

a logo; the change

in

visual identity must be accompanied by

a substantial

and real change in reality or it will be seen as mere

window-dressing or even an attempt to deceive.

Changing an

image, whether in terms of efficiency

or moral responsibility, requires a substantial com

mitment on behalf of the organization. The publi

cizing of corporate social responsibility programmes raises questions

over the moral motivation of the

programme. If it is the case that corporations and

their public relations consultants are motivated only

by the self-interested desire to achieve publicity

at

the outset rather than out of a sense of duty or

obligation to

society then, on a Kantian account of

morality, they are

acting immorally. The moral

difficulty for public relations lies both in its influ

ence at the inception of the policy as well as in the

communicative aspects in portraying reality fairly, i.e. not

claiming that the corporation wishes to be a

good corporate citizen and to do good

in society when in reality the real motive is the marketing of

the company. Such claims are tantamount to decep tion and may confuse the public about the

com

pany's real aims and objectives and its perception of

its role in society. Should a company accept this

point and act in

good faith to behave as a 'corporate

citizen' operating on the basis of mutual self-interest

and the greatest good of the greatest number, then it

ought to attempt to calculate cost-benefits to itself,

the beneficiaries and society. As part of this the

company might conduct a social audit amongst its

respective stakeholders as well as the recipients of

programmes. It could be argued that it is part of the

corporate responsibility of the public relations prac titioner to assist management in understanding these

different arguments and alternative perspectives and

to develop symmetrical public relations and ethical

corporate social responsibility. I think that this

implies the need for further analysis of the role of

public relations in society and consideration of the

public relations practitioner's prior obligation to

society versus his or her obligation

to the organiza tion for which they work.

If corporations act out of a desire to do good and

out of a sense of social obligation then they should

work towards setting up ethical decision-making

procedures to determine the nature of their obliga

tions and responsibilities as well as those which

evaluate the effects of their activities on the benefi

ciaries of their donations so that they can be sure

that they achieve the good that they claim.

To return

to the analysis of different public relations models I

This content downloaded from 149.171.67.164 on Sun, 19 Jul 2015 02:15:44 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

122 Jacquie L'Etang

would argue that the symmetrical model is appro

priate in the development of corporate social re

sponsibility and can contribute to the clarification of

the claims of different stakeholders and beneficiaries.

It can also help the organization to

change in its

relationship with these groups and to ensure that

such groups are fully acquainted with all the issues

and arguments and not simply manipulated in terms

of their recognized self-interest. It is at this point

that issues of honesty and truthfulness arise.

Conclusion

My intention in writing this paper was to

highlight what I felt were difficulties in the practice of

cor

porate social responsibility, specifically those which

arise from its close relationship with public relations

and to analyse the role of public relations, not

simply in publicizing corporate social responsibility

but in

its sponsorship of corporate social responsibility and

contribution to policy. As part of this endeavour I

have tried to identify the varied role and scope of

public relations and to suggest that while public

relations can help business to

respond to society in

accordance with the two-way symmetrical model

and Kantian respect for others, it can also use propa

ganda type tactics in its publicity mode. If the

requirements of the latter function start to drive the

way in which public relations contributes to

policy formulation then this seems to raise ethical prob lems, not only in relation

to the motivation of the

company and the moral value of the corporate social

responsibility programmes but also in relation to

public relations and its role in society. Clearly, while

this does not in any way pretend to be a complete

analysis, it is hoped that the paper raises questions

and widens the debate about corporate social re

sponsibility in a slightly different direction

than has

previously been attempted.

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to the thought-provoking and

helpful criticism of an anonymous reviewer and also

to those who kindly commented on a section of this

paper, namely, Dr. Alan Millar and Dr. Murray

MacBeath from the Philosophy Department, Uni

versity of Stirling, Dr. Tom Sorell from the Phi

losophy Department of the University of Essex and

Lesley McTurk from the Philosophy Department of

the Queen's University Belfast. Thanks are also due

to my partner; Stuart Jones who patiently read and

commented on all of the many drafts. None of these,

however, are responsible for the views presented in

this paper.

Notes

1 Wilcox, Dennis L., Ault, Phillip H.,

and Ag?e,

Warren K.,

Public Relations Strategies and Tactics, New York; Harper &

Row, 1986, p. 4. 2

Grunig, Janes E. & Hunt, Todd, Managing Public Relations,

Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, 1984, p. 143. 3

Wilcox op cit. pp. 17, 18. 4

Ibid. p. 4. 5

Private correspondence

26 June,

1989. 6

Private correspondence

20 July,

1989. 7

Clement-Jones, Tim, 'Social Responsibility: Helping to

Create a Competitive Edge', Sheffield Business School Confer ence

Proceedings, 23 April, 1992, pp. 89?95. 8

Traverse-Healy, Tim, Public Relations and

Propaganda: Values Compared, International Foundation for Public Rela

tion Studies Gold Paper No. 6. 1988. 9

Grunig and Hunt op cit. pp.

21 ?46 and passim. 10

Ibid. p. 41. 11

Ibid. p. 23. 12

Wilcox op cit. p. 7. 13

See Bradshaw, Thornton and Vogel, David

(eds), Cor

porations and their Critics Issues and Answers to the Problems

of Corporate Social Responsibility, McGraw-Hill, 1981 and

Paluszek, John L., Will the

Corporation Survive?, Reston,

Virginia, Reston Publishing Co. (Prentice Hall), 1977. 14

Cutlip, Scott M., Center, Allen H., and Broom, Glen M.,

Effective Public Relations, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 1985, Chapter 8, Adjustment and Adaptation: A Theoretical Model for Public Relations', pp. 184?199

passim. 15

Drucker, P. F., The Changing World of the Executive,

London, Heinemann Professional Publishing Ltd., 1982, pp. 234-256. 16

Sainsbury's Annual

Report and Accounts, 1989, p. 16.

17 Shell UK Ltd promotional brochure 'Good Business'

'Social Responsibility and Good Business is Socially Responsible' Introduction. 18

Private correspondence

with a financial institution. 19

Rayner, Lord, Chairman Marks and Spencer,

in Marks

and Spencer promotional brochure In the Community 1989.

This content downloaded from 149.171.67.164 on Sun, 19 Jul 2015 02:15:44 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Public Relations and Corporate Social Responsibility 123

20 BP promotional brochure BP and the Community Chair

man's Introductory Statement,

1989. 21

BP promotional

brochure BP in Society Partners in Educa

tion and the Community, Statement by the Chairman, Sir

Richard Morton, 1991. 22 Ibid. 23

Sainsbury's op cit. p. 1.

24 Walters, Sir Peter, Chairman BP, BP and the Community,

1989, p. 1.

25 'Who wills the end, wills

. . . also the means . . .' Paton,

H. J., The Moral Law, Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, London, Hutchinson, 1948,1986, p. 31.

26 Mannheim, Jarol B.,

and Pratt, Cornelius B., 'Communi

cating Corporate Social Responsibility', Public Relations

Review Vol. XV No. 2, 1989, p. 9.

27 Tilson, Donn J.,

and Vance, Donald, 'Corporate Philan

thropy Comes of

Age', Public Relations Review, Vol. XI, No. 1,

1985, pp. 26, 33. 28

Mannheim and Pratt op cit., p. 9.

29 Carmichael, Sheena and Drummond, John,

Good Business

A Guide to Corporate Responsibility and Business Ethics, London; Business Books Ltd., (Imprint of Century Hutchinson Ltd.)

1989. 30

Hoffman, W. Michael, and Moore, Jennifer Mills, (eds.) Business Ethics Readings and Cases in Corporate Morality (Second

Edition), New York et al, McGraw-Hill Publishing Com

pany, 1990. 31

Smith, Adam, The Wealth of Nations Books I?III,

Harmondsworth, Penguin Books Ltd., 1987, pp. 118?119.

32 Friedman, Milton, 'The Social Responsibility of Business

is to Increase its Profits', New York Times, 13 September,

1970, p. 126.

33 Ibid. p. 124.

34 Hirshleifer, Jack, 'Capitalist Ethics

? Tough

or Soft?' The

Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 2. 1959, p. 117. 35

Ibid. p. 119. 36

Clutterbuck, Dr. David, 'Identifying and Managing Social

Responsibility', Business Ethics A European Review, Vol. 1,

No.

1, January 1992, p. 35.

37 Ibid. 38

Friend, Carol (Pielle) cited in Walker, Barbara, Focus

'Corporate Social

Responsibility', Business Ethics A European

Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, January 1992, p. 41.

39 Paton, H. J., The Moral Law Kant's Groundwork of the

Metaphysic of 'Morals, London, Hutchinson, 1948,1986, p. 31.

40 Paton op cit., pp. 32, 90.

41 Ibid., pp. 32, 90.

References

Beauchamp, T. L. and N. E. Bowie: 1988, Ethical Theory

and

Business (Third Edition) (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs). Carmichael, S. and J.

Drummond: 1989, Good Business A

Guide to Corporate Responsibility and Business Ethics (Busi ness Books Ltd., London).

Clement-Jones, T.: 1992, 'Social Responsibility: Helping to

Create a Competitive Edge', Sheffield Business School

Conference Proceedings 23 April, 89?95.

Cutlip, S. M., A. H. Center and G. M. Broom: 1985, Effective Public Relations (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).

Dickie, R. B. and L. S. Rounder: 1986, Corporations and the

Common Good (University of Notre Dame Press, Notre

Dame).

Drucker, P. F.: 1982, The Changing World of the Executive

(Heinemann Professional Publishing Ltd., London). Friedman, M.: 1970, The Social Responsibility of Business is

to Increase its Profits', New York Times 13 September, pp.

32 et seq.

Grant, G: 1991, 'Friedman Fallacies', Journal of Business Ethics

10,907-914.

Goodpaster, K.: 1984, The Concept

of Corporate Respon

sibility', in T. Regan (ed.), Just Business New Introductory

Essays in Business Ethics (Random House, NY).

Grunig, J. E. and T. Hunt: 1984, Managing Public Relations

(Holt, Rinehart, Winston, NY). Hoffman, W. M. and J. M. Moore (eds.): 1990, Business Ethics

Readings and Cases in Corporate Morality (Second Edition)

(McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, NY etal). Mannheim, J.

B. and G B. Pratt. 1989, Communicating

Corporate Social Responsibility', Public Relations Review

XV(2). Paton, H. J.: 1948, 1986, The Moral Law, Kant's Groundwork of

the Metaphysic of Morals (Hutchinson, London). Robinson, W. L., M. S. Pritchard and J.

Ellin (eds.): 1983,

Profits and

Professions: Essays in Business and

Professional Ethics (Humana Press, Clifton, NJ).

Smith, A.: 1987, The Wealth of Nations (Books I?III) (Penguin Books Ltd., Harmondsworth).

Tilson, D. J. and D. Vance: 1985, Corporate Philanthropy Comes of Age', Public Relations Review XI (2).

Walker, B. F.: 1992, 'Corporate Social

Responsibility', Busi

ness Ethics A European Review 1(1), 29?45.

Wilcox, D. L., P. H. Ault and W. K. Agee: 1986, Public

Relations Strategies and Tactics (Harper & Row, NY).

School of Management,

University of Stirling,

Stirling, Scotland, United Kingdom.

This content downloaded from 149.171.67.164 on Sun, 19 Jul 2015 02:15:44 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions