A member entertains a government official beyond legal limits....
A member implements "grassroots" campaigns... on behalf of undisclosed interest groups.
--Examples of Improper Conduct from the PRSA's Code of Ethics.
Bob Frause, of the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), the country's largest association of P.R. pros, has a tough job. No, he's hasn't been hired to sell the electoral-college system to Gore supporters. It's worse. Frause is in charge of writing a code of ethics for what's perceived to be one of the most unethical industries of all: public relations.
Though it may surprise some that the P.R. industry--an industry responsible for making its corporate clients look good--even has an ethics code, the first guidelines were written back in the 1950s. The old code outlined 17 points of ethical behavior, which a quasi-judicial body tried to enforce. If a PRSA member was accused of ethical violations, like improper gift-giving or exaggerating financial results to influence stocks, the PRSA's Board of Ethical and Professional Standards would investigate, conduct an internal trial, and issue a verdict. However, years of complaints that the old code was weak and unenforceable finally convinced the PRSA's national board to overhaul it. Two years ago, Frause, who owns a local P.R. firm representing city and environmental groups, took on the arduous task of writing a new code of ethics. This December, two years and $93,229 later, Frause will announce the new code to the 20,000 PRSA members nationwide. Frause's solution to the old code's problems is to get rid of enforcement all together. (Well, what did you expect from an industry trying to reform itself?) However, the story is more complicated than you might think.
About 10 years ago, Frause joined the industry's ethics board after seeing repeated violations by fellow PRSA members. "There were so many people engaging in deceptive practices that I wanted to try and make some noise about it," says Frause enthusiastically. At first, Frause thought he could work with the old code's enforcement power and simply go after suspected ethics violators more aggressively. He quickly learned he was naive--enforcing the code was virtually impossible.
Frause says PRSA members suspected of ethical violations would deny the accusations, shift the blame to underlings, and threaten expensive legal retaliation against the ethics board. "In the '50s, public-relations people were willing to admit they made mistakes and wanted to correct them," says Frause. "Now it's 'fuck you; here's my lawyer--try to prove it.' We simply could not get to the truth."
Frause learned that the old code of enforcement was nothing more than a powerless piece of paper. The record proves it: According to Frause, the PRSA deals with up to 20 violations a year, but only 10 members have been reprimanded in the PRSA's entire 50-year existence. There were other problems as well. Randy Hurlow of local P.R. firm Publicis complained that the old code's language was too ambiguous. "It was difficult to enforce, because it was so open to interpretation," says Hurlow. Furthermore, Frause and other ethics board members were forbidden to talk to the press, which helped shield both suspected ethics violators and their corporate clients from public scrutiny. After intense resistance from the national PRSA board, Frause finally convinced the board that a new code was sorely needed.
With Frause's new code, there are no more enforcement or quasi-judicial bodies to review ethical violations. In exchange for losing enforcement, Frause gained a major concession: the ability to comment publicly about PRSA members. At first, the national board was extremely reluctant to go along with the new change. "Oh, it made them real nervous," says Frause. The ethics board can now comment on a company or PRSA member publicly, and point to specific code clauses that the member or firm may have violated.
Furthermore, each clause in the new code has specific examples of what constitutes unethical behavior, making it harder for PRSA members to exploit any ambiguity in the code's language. For example, one clause offers the following scenario of illegal gift-giving: "A member representing a ski manufacturer gives a pair of expensive racing skis to a sports magazine columnist, to influence the columnist to write favorable articles about the product." Also, potential victims of unethical behavior, like misled consumers or investors, could have a stronger court case by using the PRSA's own code of ethics against suspected violators.
Frause admits that an enforceable code of ethics would be the best way to police a very powerful industry like public relations. In fact, Frause would go as far as to consider federal regulation in the future. But for now, Frause hopes that public disclosure will help counteract intense pressure from his industry peers to keep enforcement out of the equation. "Believe me, nobody in this business wants to admit they're guilty."
