CH-9 Crisis Management – Public Relations Practices: Managerial Case Studies and Problems : Book Guide

This document contains Chapters 9 to 10 Chapter 9 CRISIS MANAGEMENT A crisis is a turning point, after which things may change drastically. While an organization cannot manage external influences during a crisis, it can manage its own response. Most every situation can be anticipated, and possibly avoided, so risk management, issue anticipation, and crisis communication programs have become an important part of the public relations technology. The organization’s response to a crisis depends on the public relations practitioner’s understanding of three things: 1. The public and political environment in which the crisis is occurring. 2. The culture and inner workings of the organization facing the crisis. 3. How persons and groups involved will likely react to the crisis itself. The following six guidelines will help organizations handle crisis communications situations: 1. Anticipate the unexpected. 2. Institute and practice a crisis communication plan for those events that may happen to your organization. 3. Train employees in what to do in these circumstances. 4. Have one spokesperson handling the media during the crisis. 5. If it is a crisis affecting the public, rather than just the organization, another spokesperson will also be required to keep elected officials and opinion leaders directly advised. 6. Do not speculate. The ability to communicate trustworthy information, whether directly or via the news or social media, is a measure of a practitioner’s effectiveness or ineffectiveness. In unexpected situations of crisis, the media and public relations professionals have had their finest examples of public service and their most severe episodes of failure and ineptitude. Remember, how an organization communicates through a crisis will determine, in the eyes of most, how the organization handled the crisis. Exam Questions for Chapter 9: 1. Discuss the role of a public relations practitioner during a crisis. Answer: During a crisis, the role of a public relations (PR) practitioner becomes paramount in managing communication effectively to protect the reputation and credibility of the organization involved. Here's how PR practitioners typically operate during a crisis: 1. Preparation and Planning: A PR practitioner's role starts well before a crisis hits. They develop crisis communication plans, identifying potential risks and scenarios, and outlining strategies for response. This preparation includes establishing communication channels, training spokespersons, and drafting holding statements or templates for rapid response. 2. Early Detection and Assessment: PR practitioners need to be vigilant for potential crises, monitoring media, social media, and other channels for signs of emerging issues. Early detection allows them to assess the situation quickly, gather information, and determine the appropriate response strategy. 3. Crisis Response Strategy: Based on the assessment, PR practitioners devise a response strategy. This involves determining key messages, target audiences, and the appropriate tone and channels for communication. They may also collaborate with legal and other relevant departments to ensure messages are accurate, consistent, and compliant with regulations. 4. Media Relations: PR practitioners serve as the primary interface between the organization and the media during a crisis. They provide journalists with timely and accurate information, manage press conferences or interviews, and address inquiries or rumors to maintain transparency and control the narrative. 5. Stakeholder Communication: Beyond the media, PR practitioners communicate with various stakeholders, including employees, customers, shareholders, and the public. They use multiple channels such as internal memos, social media updates, and press releases to keep stakeholders informed and reassure them of the organization's actions and commitment to resolution. 6. Monitoring and Adjusting: Throughout the crisis, PR practitioners continuously monitor feedback and reactions from stakeholders and adjust their communication strategies accordingly. They address misinformation, correct misunderstandings, and adapt messaging as the situation evolves. 7. Post-Crisis Evaluation: After the crisis subsides, PR practitioners conduct a thorough evaluation of their response. They assess what worked well, what could have been improved, and identify lessons learned to refine crisis communication plans for the future. In summary, the role of a PR practitioner during a crisis is multifaceted, encompassing proactive planning, rapid response, strategic communication, stakeholder engagement, and continuous evaluation to safeguard the organization's reputation and mitigate potential damage. 2. Discuss a crisis situation where the news media played an important role in alleviating the publics’ fears. Answer: One notable example of the news media playing a crucial role in alleviating public fears during a crisis is the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa. The outbreak, which primarily affected Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, sparked widespread panic and fear globally due to the highly contagious and deadly nature of the Ebola virus. During the crisis, the news media played several key roles in providing accurate information, debunking myths, and calming public fears: 1. Disseminating Accurate Information: The news media served as a primary source of accurate information about the Ebola virus, its transmission, symptoms, and preventive measures. Through news reports, interviews with medical experts, and investigative journalism, the media helped educate the public about the facts of the disease, dispelling misinformation and rumors that could exacerbate fear. 2. Highlighting Effective Response Efforts: Media coverage focused on the efforts of healthcare workers, aid organizations, and governments to contain the outbreak and provide care to affected individuals. By highlighting successful interventions and the dedication of frontline workers, the media helped instill confidence in the public that authorities were taking the necessary steps to address the crisis. 3. Humanizing the Impact: News stories humanized the impact of the Ebola outbreak by featuring personal accounts of survivors, healthcare workers, and communities affected by the disease. These human-interest stories fostered empathy and solidarity, counteracting stigma and discrimination against those directly impacted by the outbreak. 4. Addressing Stigma and Fear-Mongering: The media played a crucial role in challenging stigma and fear-mongering surrounding Ebola. Journalists provided context and perspective on the actual risk of transmission, emphasizing that Ebola primarily spread through direct contact with bodily fluids and was not easily transmissible through casual contact. This helped mitigate irrational fear and discrimination against individuals from affected regions. 5. Promoting Preventive Measures: Media outlets disseminated information about preventive measures individuals could take to reduce their risk of contracting Ebola, such as practicing good hand hygiene, avoiding contact with bodily fluids, and seeking medical attention if experiencing symptoms. By promoting proactive behaviors, the media empowered the public to protect themselves and their communities. Overall, the news media played a critical role in alleviating public fears during the Ebola outbreak by providing accurate information, highlighting effective response efforts, humanizing the impact of the crisis, addressing stigma and fear-mongering, and promoting preventive measures. Through responsible journalism, the media helped build trust, resilience, and solidarity in the face of a formidable public health challenge. 3. According to the text, public relations managers must have an understanding of what three elements in a crisis situation? Answer: In a crisis situation, public relations managers must have an understanding of three key elements: 1. The Situation: This includes understanding the nature and severity of the crisis, its potential impact on the organization and its stakeholders, and the underlying causes or factors contributing to the crisis. Having a clear grasp of the situation allows PR managers to formulate an effective response strategy tailored to the specific circumstances. 2. The Audience/Stakeholders: PR managers need to identify and understand the various audiences or stakeholders affected by the crisis, including employees, customers, shareholders, media, government agencies, and the general public. Understanding their concerns, expectations, and communication preferences enables PR managers to tailor their messaging and engagement strategies to address their needs and mitigate potential negative repercussions. 3. The Communication Channels and Strategies: PR managers must be familiar with the available communication channels and strategies for effectively reaching and engaging with stakeholders during a crisis. This includes traditional media channels (such as press releases, press conferences, and media interviews), digital platforms (such as social media, websites, and email), as well as interpersonal communication channels (such as direct meetings or phone calls). PR managers need to assess which channels are most appropriate for delivering key messages, providing updates, and responding to inquiries or concerns in a timely and transparent manner. 4. The authors offer six guidelines to help organizations handle crisis communication situations. What are they? The six guidelines offered by authors to help organizations handle crisis communication situations typically include: 1. Be Proactive: Rather than waiting for a crisis to occur, organizations should proactively identify potential risks and develop crisis communication plans. Being prepared allows for a more timely and effective response when a crisis does occur. 2. Be Transparent: Transparency is crucial during a crisis to maintain credibility and trust. Organizations should provide accurate and honest information to stakeholders, even when the situation is challenging. Transparency helps to prevent rumors and misinformation from spreading. 3. Be Timely: Timeliness is essential in crisis communication. Organizations should provide updates and information to stakeholders as quickly as possible, acknowledging the urgency of the situation and demonstrating a commitment to addressing concerns promptly. 4. Be Consistent: Consistency in messaging is key to maintaining credibility and avoiding confusion during a crisis. Organizations should ensure that all communication channels and spokespersons deliver consistent messages, reinforcing key points and avoiding contradictions. 5. Be Compassionate: Compassion and empathy are vital components of effective crisis communication. Organizations should acknowledge the impact of the crisis on affected individuals and communities, express concern for their well-being, and demonstrate a commitment to providing support and assistance. 6. Be Prepared to Learn: Every crisis presents an opportunity for organizations to learn and improve their crisis communication strategies. After the crisis has subsided, organizations should conduct a thorough evaluation of their response, identify areas for improvement, and incorporate lessons learned into future crisis communication plans. This continuous learning process helps organizations become more resilient and better equipped to handle future crises. Case 9-1 TROUBLE IN THE PEWS: THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND CHILD MOLESTATION Even the best public relations counsel, strategy, and tactics can’t overcome the public’s outrage over child molestation. That these crimes were committed in the Catholic Church environment makes the revelations that much more vile. Nothing anyone can say or do can make up for what has happened. That’s the situation the Church finds itself in after decades of silence. Yes, it would be easy to say the Church should have addressed the problems years ago, and in its own way, that’s what the Church did. But in today’s enlightened environment, the Church’s actions are too little, too late for many. What can be done? At this point, massive financial settlements are being announced (Such as $660 million in California in 2007) and the Church is trying to recover its reputation with its members, the public, and public agencies. 1. Some critics of the Catholic Church won’t accept the church’s position that crimes that occurred years ago should be judged by the standards of the day. What can/should the Church say to those people? Answer: This is a legitimate concern, both for the church and for its critics. Abuse of a child has always been wrong, something no one denies. So, why were the priests who were involved not removed from the church? This is the essence of the critics’ concerns. The church wants everyone to understand that the measures taken decades ago were in keeping with standards of the time. Like other standards, these have changed. At the same time, many priests were removed from positions that could have put additional children in jeopardy. This should be one of the key message points for the church. A second point is that the charges that are coming out now sometimes date back for decades as well. That “nothing was done” is an easy charge for someone to make, especially if the accuser isn’t interested in the context of the situation. “Something” was done at the time, even if the critic doesn’t like or accept the actions that occurred. Finally, most of the most vocal critics don’t want answers as much as they want to be heard. A sound strategy would be to hear them out, politely, and continue making points one and two. 2. Most crisis communication strategies recommend gaining or setting the “agenda” and establishing reasonable expectations. In this case, the media and the critics seem to have jumped on both the agenda and expectations. What could the Church have done to get control of the issue? Answer: When your opponents (and the media have served as a foe in this instance) have the upper hand in setting the agenda, it’s difficult to get it back. Because of the salacious nature of this issue, it’s not likely that the media will ignore the story. After all, it’s gone on for more than seven years as of press time for this text. What the church might do is take serious corrective action and focus all its communication on those remedial efforts. Yes, this will prolong the “story” because every time changes are made, the old charges will be repeated. But the story isn’t going away anyway, so this is not really a new risk. Also, dealing directly with key stakeholders who give the Church the behaviors they really need to move ahead, going “around the media” helps avoid sensationalism and rebuild relationships. It also gives more time to explain a more complicated situation that can be addressed in a newspaper article or 30-second television clip. Finally, the traditional mantra of “apologize, fix the problem, communicate the changes” really does work. In this case, as in all others, however, the changes MUST be genuine and permanent. This is an issue that must stop before it will go away. 3. This case focuses on New Hampshire and the Boston area, but the problem is much more widespread than New England. Shouldn’t there be some national or international effort on behalf of the Church? What would you recommend? Answer: This particular case IS about one segment of the problem, but the remedial efforts are going on around the country and the world. It doesn’t appear, however, that the efforts are coordinated. For example, in Florida, leading practitioners are working with individual dioceses to address the problem in Orlando, St. Petersburg, and Palm Beach. While each region has unique, specific problems, the general problem is loss of trust in the institution that is the Catholic Church. Critics and media leaders are calling for changes in the institution—married clergy is one at the top of the list. The church would do well to take a long look at what lies behind this ugly situation and make long-term commitments to change. Then the public relations efforts will have some foundation. 4. How does the Diocese handling of this crisis compare with the handling of the sexual molestation case at Penn State (see Case 10-2)? Answer: On the surface, it seems that Penn State took cues from the Catholic Church. Neither did anything to stop the abuse or help the children being abused. Both were more concerned with covering up abuse so that the image/reputation of the organizations would not be damaged. One major difference in the two cases is the length, depth and intensity of abuse within the church. Penn State’s problem involved only one man. The church was infested with abuse, and had been for decades. The church had many more chances to do the right thing, and declined until its hand was forced by public opinion. At Penn State, the problem was centered around Jerry Sandusky, but quickly spread to be an institutional problem. Red flags were everywhere around Sandusky, but PSU administrators chose to ignore them. Maybe it was to protect PSU; maybe Joe Paterno was trying to hold on to his job and his legacy. Once both institutions realized the extent of damage the crisis was having, Penn State seemed to move more quickly to contain the issue, reach out to those who had been hurt. build lines of communication and do the right thing. But the Church’s issues were much more widespread and the potential for perpetrators was not isolated as it was at Penn State. So putting the issue to rest was much harder for the Church. It seems that Penn State is trying to do the right thing and move forward. The new board of trustees has accepted sanctions and the team had a successful first season post Paterno. The jury is still out on the Catholic Church. Case 9-2 THE WEST VIRIGINA MINE DISASTER: AN EMOTIONAL ROLLER COASTER AND PUBLIC RELATIONS TRAIN WRECK How an organization communicates throughout its crisis will determine, in the minds of most, how the company actually handled the crisis. The average American isn’t equipped to evaluate how effectively the crisis was handled, so opinions are formed on what is known—the external or internal communication that takes place during the period of crisis. When a crisis strikes, it is too late to write a crisis plan. A forward-looking organization will have in place a plan for dealing with operational problems and public perceptions if it wants to successfully negotiate the swirling waters of unexpected problems. That this case seems to be devoid of such preparation makes it a good example of how not to communicate through a crisis. 1. What preparations might ICG have made to (a) anticipate the incident at the Sago mine and (b) avert the communication fiasco? Is it possible to “expect the unexpected”? Answer: Every organization should have some idea of what it needs to do when a crisis occurs. Every mine operator should have a plan to communicate through a mining incident, be it an explosion, a cave-in, or another situation. These plans should have operational components as well as communication components. Operationally, the mining company should have dependable communication equipment. It should have planned ahead for the possibility that anyone going into a mine accident site would need full face masks. It could have anticipated problematic communication connections and transmissions, and tested equipment to see what works best. From a public relations/communication standpoint, having friends and family standing around listening to rescue workers’ conversations is verboten. Perhaps the first thing communication professionals need to do is secure the site, with “need to know” people allowed access. With a secure site, it is likely that erroneous information would not have circulated. With controlled communication, better equipment, and a more dependable plan in place—in other words, having anticipated some of what happened—this would have been a tragedy, but not a public relations circus. 2. Did you detect a PR presence during this case? Why? Why not? Answer: Not much PR presence is obvious. There was no “one clear voice” giving official information briefings as the scenario played out. As a result, speculation and rumor became the mode of communication, to everyone’s detriment. Having the CEO on the scene was a positive, but even he was not well informed about what was going on—even believing for a while that 12 miners were alive. No PR presence probably means no PR plan was in place—something that seems obvious in hindsight. 3. What role did the governor’s pronouncement play in the scenario? Was this a good idea? Why? Why not? Answer: The governor needed his public relations counsel as badly as did the company. A public official should never go out on a limb and announce information that has not been confirmed. His pronouncement gave credibility to the misinformation and led to hard feelings among those who thought they were being misled. Without the governor’s credibility, it’s possible the media might not have given the wrong information such a major role. The governor, more than anyone else, contributed to the confusion and chaos. Case 9-3 CRISIS COMMUNICATION LESSONS LEARNED: THE CRASH OF CONTINENTAL CONNECTION FLIGHT 3407 No company wants a crisis, but airlines are particularly vulnerable to one of the worst—a flight going down. Lost lives, chaos, grieving families and loved ones, demanding media: all these things come together at the crash site in what has to be a nightmare for all involved. 1. How did having a crisis plan in place make life simpler for those on the ground in Buffalo? Answer: Every PR counselor knows to have a crisis plan ready, but in reality, few do. In this case, not only was there a workable plan in place, but affected publics had reviewed it recently and were familiar with what specific roles were to play. This enabled officials to immediately shift into crisis mode and start getting information out to a public that was thirsty for news. By knowing what needed to be done, and by whom, confusion and chaos was limited to the actual crash site. The responders knew what they were doing, and did it well. 2. Why is “one clear voice” important in a crisis? Answer: When communicating through a crisis, consistency of message is critical. An organization cannot afford to have anyone and everyone speaking at once. In Buffalo, regular bulletins were given at designated times, giving the response team time to gather real facts—not opinions or hopes and dreams—to communicate to the public. Media know and respect this service. By initiating one clear voice, the responders maintain the agenda, can control expectations, and treat all media outlets equally. 3. Contrast the communication in Buffalo with that in West Virginia (coal mine). Answer: The two situations have only one thing in common: it was a classic disaster at both locations. Lives were lost. Confusion reigned. Families and loved ones were aching to know what was happening. In West Virginia, no plan was in place. Misinformation was allowed to go unchecked. False hopes were raised. The communication effort was as big a disaster as the mine explosion. In Buffalo, with its crisis communication plan in place, responders were able to gather and disseminate information on a regular basis, leading to a smooth flow of news from the site. The plane was still down; people were still dead. But by making it easy for people to get information—accurate, confirmed information—the people in Buffalo mitigated the impact of the crash as much as possible. Case 9-4 REALIST SENSE-MAKING IN CRISIS PUBLIC RELATIONS: THE CASE OF BP Oil spills bring out the worst from every side. Environmentalists are quick to point fingers. Those affected (wounded) look to the government(s) and to those they blame for compensation and cleanup. Petroleum companies generally raise prices. The average consumer is hit hard and normally winds up poorer. All of this came true when a BP oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico erupted in 2010, soiling the shores of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. This case looks at the public relations aspects of the Great Spill. 1. Could BP have “passed the buck” to its drilling partner, Transocean? Would this have been a good strategy? Why? Why not? Answer: It would have been a bigger disaster for BP if it had tried to avoid responsibility for the spill. Any time a major player (as BP is) is involved in a disaster, the public expects and demands it be involved in the solution. So BP had to get involved, which it did. How well it did is what this case is all about. 2. Was putting Tony Hayward “out front” as spokesman for the crisis effort a good idea? Why? Why not? Answer: Tylenol set the bar for using the CEO as chief communications officer when it sent Jim Burke to every television station, every newspaper interview, and every Rotary Club meeting in an effort to defuse Tylenol’s role in the tainted capsules. It was a huge success, mostly because Burke was a fascicle communicator and was well trained for the task. Others have not been, and shouldn’t be, placed in that position. Hayward was not a good choice, mostly because he had no feel for the job. He seemed self-centered and more interested in “getting on with it” than in answering the questions and solving the problems created by the spill. 3. Hayward was CEO of the company. How might the PR staff have better prepared him for his role in the crisis? Answer: If BP really had no one better equipped to be the spokesperson, then Hayward should have had emergency media training; he should have been scripted and held to it. He needed to make his points and get off the stage. Let a media specialist deal with questions and ad hoc communication. His staff did Hayward a disservice by throwing him to the wolves. 4. BP followed most of the traditional steps in dealing with a difficult time. What went wrong? What steps did BP’s PR people miss? Answer: First, it let the agenda get away. By not being able to stop the oil gushing from the bottom of the Gulf, BP looked inept. Someone once said “when you are up to your neck in alligators, it’s hard to drain the swamp.” That was what BP experienced. With oil pouring into the Gulf, communication about how well the cleanup was going was not believable. Nor was BP able to provide realistic expectations of when the oil would stop pouring or when the cleanup would begin and end. In short, operational ineptness kept BP’s communication effort largely reactive and ineffective. 5. Was the U.S. Congress trying to help the situation or posturing for political gain? Answer: The US congress is always posturing for political gain. The House of Representatives has to reelect itself every two years. Those people never miss a chance to look congressional. The hearings were more punishment for BP than productive. It’s hard to see anything beneficial that came from the hearings. 6. Now that the spill is over, the cleanup pretty well wrapped up, and the public agenda focused elsewhere, what will the lasting impact of this crisis be? Answer: Probably less than the Exxon disaster in Alaska decades ago. The Gulf cleanup went pretty well. BP spent its billions wisely in helping restore the Gulf communities that were tainted by the oil. There is limited animosity toward BP today because it finally was able to focus on cleanup and recovery, and when granted that option, did pretty well. The Gulf is back in business now. Case 9-5 HURRICANE KATRINA: A DISASTER FROM BEGINNING TO END When Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast in Mississippi and Louisiana, its 150-mile winds couldn’t have done more damage than the area’s lack of preparation. When the winds died down, New Orleans, particularly, was destroyed—as much by lack of leadership and preparation as by the winds and water. Finger pointing replaced communication as the order of the days, weeks, and months. Good public relations never had a chance. 1. If you were responsible for your community’s crisis plan, what three areas would you focus on primarily and why? Answer: The first area of communication planning to be considered is departmental. In times of crisis, it is imperative that everyone be on the same page internally so that “one clear voice” is possible, even in times of chaos. The plan should spell out roles and responsibilities by position—not by name—because people come and go but positions and responsibilities are pretty constant. Knowing who is in charge of what gives one clear voice a better chance. Taking care of internal audiences should be the second priority. A city or county has many key internal constituencies, all of which have political overtones. Those who represent the public—or work for those who represent the public—are in the first wave of “need to know,” because they have to satisfy their audiences. Finally, an external plan needs to be established. In an ongoing crisis such as Katrina, regular briefings and updates help diminish rumors and speculation. The key here is to tell only what is “known” and to not create “official” rumors by speculating on what might or might not be happening. 1. What do you believe was unique about the New Orleans culture that should have been taken into consideration by practitioners? Answer: New Orleans has a unique public persona. Its “let the good times roll” attitude makes it a popular party spot, and many travelers have adopted this attitude and the city that espouses it. Mardi Gras is one of the “don’t miss” events for serious party people and world-wise travelers. Understanding this unique position was important to those working this crisis. People want to know what’s happening to “their city.” Second, the dire poverty of the city is greatly misunderstood by those who don’t live there. If you come to the French Quarter, you don’t see the outlying districts where people live in squalor. That these people are not prepared to deal with a tragedy of this magnitude should have been obvious to any practitioner. Knowing this, there should have been preparations for communicating with people who are too poor to protect themselves. Finally, the legendary corruption and politicization of everything in Louisiana should be a consideration. Anyone with any history in the state and city knows that political considerations are paramount and “CYA” actions and communication normally predominate over what’s really best for the community. Again, let those who have ears hear. 2. What might local public relations professionals have done on behalf of the city to assist in the days following? Do you believe the political stranglehold was too strong to make a difference? Answer: If there was an organized, dedicated association of practitioners, like a PRSA Chapter, for example, this group might have been able to take some of the pressure off the “official” spokespeople by doing backgrounders and collecting other information useful to the national and international media that appeared after the flood. Unfortunately (see above), political considerations, race, and blame were immediately on the table, and it’s doubtful that any ex post facto communication or strategic help would have made a difference. The mayor of New Orleans was interested in very little past his political agenda. The same was true for the governor of Louisiana and even the national representatives. Once the chaos was established, it attained a life of its own. Problem 9-A WHEN ASSOCIATES DISAGREE ON HANDLING AN EMERGENCY Three months ago you were hired to start a Public Relations Department at Reliable Steel Products Company. This is a young company with big ambitions. It is located in a medium-sized city in an area where industrial and residential building are predicted to boom. Reliable manufactures pipes, beams, rods and other heavy parts for just about any kind of building. After three months, your “department”consists of you and a secretary. Your outlook is bright, however. You report directly to the president, and she wants to be publicly known and highly regarded in the community and in the industry. To be of maximum help, you have done your homework by checking on the reputation of Reliable around town and in the industry. In the home community, Reliable and its president are not universally known, but employees, neighbors and the people at the Chamber of Commerce feel that Reliable is well-managed, makes good products, and is a civic-minded neighbor. A few people did say that there have been a few accidents involving employees; it seems a rather dangerous place to work. One morning, when the president is on her way to the state capital, you get a call from a reporter at the local daily newspaper. He says that an ambulance driver told him a Reliable employee had been killed a few minutes earlier when some pipes rolled off a pile while a truck was being loaded in the shipping yard. The reporter asks for details. You tell him you will check it out at once and get back to him. You call the safety supervisor. He blows up and insists that no details be released to any outsider until all the facts can be determined, the employee’s family notified, the insurance company alerted and the company lawyers informed. He tells you to hold off until the president returns the next morning. You agree on the priority of the employee’s family, but explain that you cannot prevent the newspaper from publishing anything that they have gotten elsewhere, whether it is accurate or not. The safety supervisor says to take it up with personnel director. You call her. She says that they have someone out at the employee’s home, but she agrees with the safety supervisor that situations like this have all kinds of possible problems, with a chance of backlash. She thinks an unplanned response without the president’s knowledge would be dangerous. She wants no part of it. 1. There are a number of alternatives open to you, but not much time to choose among them. What would be the best course to follow now? Everything considered, what immediate initiatives (if any) would you take? Answer: If at all possible, try to reach the president at the state capital. She needs to be informed about what has happened, particularly in case a reporter or someone else approaches her there. Also, you can counsel her with ideas and suggestions on how she ought to handle the situation. Whether or not you are able to reach the president, get back to the local news reporter as soon as possible. You can confirm that a Reliable employee died, and explain to the reporter that you cannot release any more details because the victim’s family has not yet been notified. Offer to call the reporter back with more details as soon as you get them. It is important to be cooperative with the reporter, because he can (and probably will) run the story with or without your help, and it would be wise to get the facts in print first, rather than speculation. Also, once the reporter learns that you aren’t going to be helpful, he will go to others for information, and that information might not always be accurate. With so many different opinions on how to handle this situation, it might be most productive for Reliable management to call a meeting. With everyone in one place, it would be easier to formulate a strategy for dealing with the issue, designate a public spokesperson (namely you, the public relations director) and plan your message for the public. “One clear voice” is imperative in this situation, to squelch further speculation or rumors about the accident. 2. What further issues can be anticipated as a result of the crisis? How would you recommend dealing with them? Answer: Clearly, there is a lack of communication within Reliable about the chain of command, and there does not appear to be an organized crisis plan. To prevent such confusion about who can say what and what actions to take in the future, you need to establish some definitions with the president and other department heads, such as the safety supervisor and the personnel director. Aside from the president, who calls the shots in a time of crisis? Who speaks to the media, and who decides what can and cannot be said? Those roles and responsibilities need to be clearly defined. It was mentioned in the problem that there were preexisting public perceptions about Reliable being a dangerous place to work. With the death of this employee, that perception is bound to be reinforced. Your company will want to assure employees and the public that Reliable is a safe place to work. Step up safety standards, update existing precautions taken at the company and make a visible effort to make safety a priority. You don’t want the public to think that the company was dangerous before the accident, but you do want them to know that you recognize their concerns. While accidents do happen, Reliable would be the wounded party if it gained a reputation for being a hazardous place to work. Problem 9-B WHAT TO DO WHEN AN EMPLOYEE’S PROBLEMS AFFECT THE COMPANY In advising this small business owner, the first thing to offer him is a reality check. He must know that the media will continue to follow the story, looking for anything to keep it alive, up to and through the trial. The suspect will continue to be referred to as an ABC employee, out on bond put up by his boss and still working for ABC while awaiting trial as a rapist. This is a juicy case and the media won’t give up on it. Second, he must understand the “pack” mentality of the media. Reporters will swarm his business, the courthouse where the trial is being held, the home of the suspect, and the neighborhood where he and his neighbors live. A microphone will be in the face of anyone willing to talk and a photographer will pop away at any and all involved in the case, including the owner of the ABC company. With that in mind, what kind of communication strategy can be developed? This is a classic opportunity for two-way, symmetrical communication applied in an “inside-out” method. The owner needs to first talk with his employees. They have to understand why he is doing what he is doing—standing by his employee even in the face of a serious criminal charge. Second, he needs to reassure them that he would do the same for any and all of them. They are like family to him and one doesn’t abandon his family, especially in time of need. Third, he needs to tell them that he wishes their support and even their help in spreading this message to customers and those in the community who might inquire or question them about the situation. In short, they will be part of the first line of communication to the public. The next group to address is the customer base. This is best done via open letter to all ABC customers explaining the owner’s long history and faith in his employee. He is willing to consider the man innocent until proven otherwise. However, to assuage any fears that customers might have, the suspect/employee has been relegated to office duties until after the trial. The third level of communication is directed at any other stakeholders, such as suppliers and distributors, who work with ABC on a regular basis. In a letter similar to the one sent to the customers, the owner will ask for their support during this difficult time and explain his decision to support his employee. Having done this, it is likely that the letters will be “leaked” to the media. That’s okay, because the letters say nothing the media don’t already know—the boss supports his employee and feels the matter will be successfully resolved in court. The fact that the suspect/employee is restricted to office duties demonstrates the owner’s responsibility to his customers. The only downside to this communication strategy is that it opens the door to “one more story” by the reporters following the situation. By generating additional coverage of the issue, ABC runs the risk of repetition of message, which could result in more exposure and/or retention of the information. This has to be a risk the owner is willing to take. The strategy for dealing with this crisis is really a legal one. Its success depends on the employee being exonerated by the jury. Until the trial, the strategy is to keep a low profile, keep the suspect/employee away from customers and the media and help the defense attorney as much as possible. This “below the radar” strategy will include working with key opinion leaders in the city to monitor public opinion on the issue. If the community is not unduly upset over the bail issue, then the low profile activity will continue. If there are community concerns, then those will have to be weighed against the problem of more media exposure. As for the media, the reporters will continue to investigate, looking for a fresh angle by trying to interview neighbors, employees, and anyone with any connection to the case. Leaving them alone is the best strategy now, while awaiting the trial. Once the trial begins, the owner needs to be as invisible as possible, leaving the defendant and lawyers to handle the court proceedings. This strategy presumes the innocence of the employee/suspect. If there are doubts about that, or if he is, indeed, guilty, then the strategy goes from defending him to cutting him loose to face the charges in court. Distance from the criminal is the key. In this case, the owner needs to claim the “victim” mantle, saying his trust in the employee was misplaced, and that he and everyone associated with ABC is damaged by this one bad apple. “My support of him was based on the constitutional right for everyone to be considered innocent until proven guilty,” he should say. “Now that he has been declared guilty of this horrible deed, then he must face the consequences of his actions. I and all the employees of ABC regret being associated with this man.” That statement will suffice for all audiences—employees, customers, stakeholders and even the media. Following that statement, nothing else needs to be said. Chapter 10 STANDARDS, ETHICS, AND VALUES Discussed in this chapter are the five factors that regulate social conduct. The authors identify those factors as: Tradition: How has the situation been viewed or handled in the past? Public opinion: What is currently acceptable behavior to the majority of one’s peers? Law: What is permissible and what prohibited by legislation? Morality: Generally connotes a spiritual or religious prohibition; immorality is a charge usually leveled on issues on which religious teachings have concentrated. Ethics: Standards set by a profession, an organization, or oneself, based on conscience—what is right or fair to others as well as to self? These factors keep society functioning despite the negative factors that work against it, such as self-interest, criminality, and overcompetitiveness. The role of conscience is difficult to establish, simply because there are so many variables. What is acceptable or not acceptable often becomes a personal or organizational choice, and that range of conscience is substantial. Another consideration is cultural differences—what may be perfectly acceptable in some societies is utterly improper in others. It is important to remember that most people tend to apply higher ethical standards for others than they practice themselves—a classic example of “do as I say, not as I do.” Chapter 10 presents a number of situations in which ethics come into question, and it challenges students to make judgments on whether situations are or are not ethically correct. In an attempt to set a standard for the role of conscience in public relations, the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) adopted a Member Code of Ethics. This provides practitioners who are members of PRSA with a standard to follow, to ensure that their activities are noble and unquestionable. The PRSA Member Code of Ethics also works to position public relations as a disciplined ethical and moral force in today’s professional arena. Exam Questions for Chapter 10: 1. As stated, ethics quite often becomes an issue of personal beliefs and values. Are there any circumstances where you, as a public relations practitioner, would sacrifice you own ethical guidelines? Explain why or why not. Answer: However, I can discuss this question from a theoretical standpoint. Public relations practitioners often encounter situations where ethical considerations may conflict with other pressures, such as client expectations, organizational priorities, or financial incentives. While it's essential to uphold ethical guidelines in PR practice, there may be circumstances where practitioners feel pressured to compromise their ethical principles. Here are a few hypothetical scenarios where a PR practitioner might be tempted to sacrifice their ethical guidelines: 1. Pressure from the Client or Employer: A PR practitioner may face pressure from a client or employer to engage in deceptive or manipulative tactics to protect the organization's reputation or achieve desired outcomes. This could include withholding information, spinning the truth, or misleading the public. 2. Financial Incentives or Job Security: In situations where a practitioner's job or financial well-being is at stake, there may be a temptation to prioritize personal interests over ethical considerations. This could involve engaging in practices that compromise transparency or integrity to secure a contract or retain employment. 3. Urgency or Crisis Response: During a crisis situation, there may be pressure to respond quickly and decisively, leading practitioners to cut corners or overlook ethical considerations in their communication efforts. This could result in the dissemination of inaccurate information or the exploitation of vulnerable stakeholders. While these circumstances may create ethical dilemmas, it's crucial for PR practitioners to adhere to ethical principles and values, even in the face of pressure or temptation. Sacrificing ethical guidelines can damage trust, reputation, and credibility in the long term, ultimately undermining the effectiveness of PR efforts and harming both the organization and its stakeholders. Instead, PR practitioners should strive to navigate ethical challenges with integrity, professionalism, and a commitment to transparency and accountability. This may involve advocating for ethical practices within their organizations, seeking guidance from professional codes of conduct or industry standards, and considering the potential consequences of their actions on all stakeholders involved. 2. The Public Relations Society of America developed its Member Code of Ethics in an effort to bring some regulation and standardization to the practice of public relations. Can you think of any negative aspects of having this kind of ethical guide? Are there any “missing pieces” that you would add to the Member Code of Ethics? That you would omit? Answer: While ethical guidelines such as the Member Code of Ethics developed by the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) serve an important purpose in promoting professionalism and accountability in the practice of public relations, there are potential drawbacks and areas for improvement: Negative aspects: 1. Rigidity vs. Flexibility: Ethical codes may sometimes be perceived as overly rigid or prescriptive, failing to account for the complexity and nuance of real-world ethical dilemmas. Practitioners may feel constrained by a one-size-fits-all approach and struggle to apply ethical principles effectively in diverse situations. 2. Enforcement Challenges: Ethical guidelines rely on voluntary compliance and self-regulation within the profession. Without effective mechanisms for enforcement or consequences for violations, practitioners may disregard ethical principles with impunity, undermining the credibility of the profession as a whole. 3. Cultural and Contextual Differences: Ethical codes developed by professional organizations may reflect the values and norms of specific cultural or geographical contexts, potentially overlooking the diversity of perspectives and ethical frameworks within the global PR community. Practitioners operating in different cultural or regulatory environments may find it challenging to reconcile conflicting ethical standards. Missing pieces: 1. Emphasis on Social Responsibility: While the PRSA Member Code of Ethics includes principles such as advocacy, honesty, and fairness, there could be a greater emphasis on the social responsibility of PR practitioners to contribute positively to society and address broader issues such as sustainability, diversity, and social justice. 2. Guidance on Emerging Issues: Ethical codes may not always address rapidly evolving issues and technologies in the PR industry, such as the ethical implications of social media manipulation, data privacy concerns, or the proliferation of misinformation. Including guidance on these emerging challenges would help practitioners navigate ethical dilemmas in a digital age. 3. Accountability Mechanisms: Enhancing accountability mechanisms within ethical codes, such as establishing procedures for reporting ethical violations and conducting impartial investigations, would strengthen the effectiveness of ethical guidelines and promote greater adherence to ethical standards within the profession. Omissions: 1. Conflict of Interest: While the PRSA Member Code of Ethics mentions the obligation to avoid conflicts of interest, providing more specific guidance on how to identify and manage conflicts of interest in practice would be beneficial. This could include disclosing potential conflicts, maintaining independence and objectivity, and seeking guidance from ethical advisors when necessary. 2. Transparency in Advocacy: Transparency is a fundamental ethical principle in PR, yet the PRSA Member Code of Ethics could provide clearer guidance on the importance of disclosing the motives behind advocacy efforts, including sponsorship, funding sources, and potential biases. Transparency fosters trust and credibility in communication efforts. In summary, while ethical guidelines like the PRSA Member Code of Ethics play a valuable role in promoting ethical conduct within the PR profession, there is room for improvement in terms of flexibility, enforcement, cultural sensitivity, and coverage of emerging issues. By addressing these shortcomings and incorporating additional guidance on social responsibility, accountability, and transparency, ethical codes can better serve the needs of practitioners and enhance the reputation and credibility of the PR profession. 3. More and more companies today are implementing ethics training and hiring ethics officers in order to maintain standards within their organization. Make a list of positive and negative implications of this addition to the workplace. Is it ethical for a company to implement this kind of ethics monitor? Answer: Implementing ethics training and hiring ethics officers can have both positive and negative implications for organizations: Positive Implications: 1. Promotion of Ethical Behavior: Ethics training raises awareness about ethical issues and dilemmas, helping employees understand the importance of ethical conduct in their roles. This can lead to a culture of integrity and accountability within the organization. 2. Compliance with Regulations: Ethics training ensures that employees are familiar with relevant laws, regulations, and industry standards, reducing the risk of legal violations and regulatory penalties. 3. Protection of Reputation: By prioritizing ethical behavior and decision-making, organizations can safeguard their reputation and credibility, earning the trust of customers, investors, and other stakeholders. 4. Risk Mitigation: Ethics officers play a crucial role in identifying and addressing ethical risks and vulnerabilities within the organization, helping to prevent misconduct, fraud, and other unethical behaviors. 5. Employee Engagement and Satisfaction: Employees may feel more valued and engaged when organizations prioritize ethics and integrity, leading to higher levels of job satisfaction and retention. Negative Implications: 1. Perceived Lack of Trust: The implementation of ethics training and ethics officers may be perceived by employees as a lack of trust or suspicion, leading to feelings of resentment or skepticism about the organization's motives. 2. Resistance to Change: Employees may resist ethics training or the presence of ethics officers, viewing them as additional burdens or constraints on their autonomy. This resistance can hinder the effectiveness of ethics initiatives. 3. Resource Constraints: Establishing ethics training programs and hiring ethics officers requires financial and human resources, which may strain the organization's budget and divert attention from other priorities. 4. Risk of Tokenism: In some cases, ethics training and ethics officers may be perceived as mere box-ticking exercises or PR tactics, rather than genuine commitments to ethical conduct. This can undermine the credibility of ethics initiatives. 5. Limited Effectiveness: Despite efforts to promote ethical behavior, there is no guarantee that ethics training and ethics officers will eliminate all unethical conduct within an organization. Some employees may still engage in misconduct due to individual or situational factors. Regarding the ethicality of implementing ethics monitors, it is generally considered ethical for companies to prioritize ethical behavior and integrity within their organizations. Ethical conduct is essential for maintaining trust with stakeholders, complying with legal and regulatory requirements, and promoting a positive corporate culture. However, organizations should ensure that ethics initiatives are implemented transparently, fairly, and effectively, and that employees are provided with the necessary support and resources to uphold ethical standards in their roles. Case 10-1 THE DANGER OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE NEGLECTING ETHICS: FOREST LABORATORIES AND CELEX One of the Great Truths of PR says that there is no such thing as “corporate ethics.” People are either ethical or they are not. The ethics of decision makers, therefore, determine the ethics of the organization. Ethics can fall victim to any number of temptations—profit, power, position, popularity, etc. At Foster, profit seemed to be the goal, with other chips left to fall where they may. To what extent did Forest consider it stakeholders when marketing Celexa? Answer: Based on the facts presented, Forest had little concern for anything beyond its own profits and the management bonus checks to follow. Marketing off-label usage and kickbacks show no regard for the consumers, the health profession, or public welfare. If you had been the public relations officer at Forest when this crisis began to unfold, how could you have responded? Answer: Many PR counselors would have resigned once the facts began to be known. For those who chose to remain and try to help the ethics-challenged management, the options are few. A guilty plea, heavy fines, and a general castigation leave PR counsel with a difficult job. One avenue to pursue, if the company really wants to improve its image, would be to make a full admission of wrongdoing, apologize, then set the ship on a straight and narrow course. Some might say that the Forest management team would consider the fines a cost of doing business, and continue its previous practices. In that case, every PR advisor should resign. What would you identify as problematic within Forest’s organizational structure? Specifically, what was the role of the public relations function, and was that an effective use of public relations? Was there an ethics officer, and if not, who was in charge of ethics at all? What was the “safety net” in case of problems? Answer: There is no sign that Forest had anyone in charge of public relations or ethics. Mr. Solomon certainly wasn’t listening if anyone was raising these issues. It seems that profit-at-any-cost was the management style, and anyone who protested would likely be ostracized in the organization. If you were hired as a consultant to work with Forest on creating an issues management plan for the future, what types of things would you recommend? Answer: The first thing Forest needs is probably new management. Mr. Solomon and his crew don’t seem to have any moral compass. Absent that, the company needs a strong ethics officer with the power to demand change, orchestrate change, and inculcate change into the fabric of the company. Forest’s issues are self-induced. Change needs to start at the top to be effective. If the CEO isn’t on board, no one is going to pay attention to an ethics officer or PR advisor. What recommendations would you make to Forest to “institutionalize a corporate conscience” and ingrain the importance of ethics within its organization? Answer: The first thing Forest needs to do is decide if it wants to be an ethical company. Judging from this case, the answer is uncertain. If it wants to be an ethical supplier, it needs to model and reward ethical behavior. It needs to punish unethical behavior. It needs to do all of this in a very public way, first inside the organization and then to external audiences. The first step is to acknowledge that past behavior is unacceptable and will be stopped. Sincere, Contrite statements and actions have to follow. New standards have to be drawn, set in stone, and instilled in everyone in the company up and down lines of responsibility. Systems have to be created to monitor all behaviors, rewarding the good and punishing the bad. A “corporate commitment to ethics” needs to be created and displayed in offices, public areas and conference rooms, so that everyone will constantly be reminded that Forest is now an ethical company. Of course, all this is predicated on Forest wanting to change its corporate culture. If earnings over ethics remains its mantra, then no program will work. Who is ultimately responsible for the ethics of an organization? What role does the CEO play in both ethical and fiduciary responsibilities? Answer: The Board of Directors, to whom the CEO reports, has the ultimate responsibility for the direction the company takes. That is the role of directors—to direct. Where the board was while this is going on might be a good Master’s thesis for an MBA program. Unless the CEO’s job is on the line for unethical conduct, he or she will press for the highest quarterly profits, points on the P/E ratio, and bonus achievement. If ethical conduct might sidetrack those goals, then ethics will be kicked to the curb by the greed of management. Case 10-2 PENN STATE UNIVERSITY: SANDUSKY MATTER SULLIES SCHOOL REPUTATION Nothing has shocked the sporting world more than the revelation that Penn State and its revered football coach, Joe Paterno, were housing and hiding a sexual pervert. Once revealed, the University was hit with huge fines, loss of football scholarships, and loss of victories that had made Paterno the “winningest” coach in big-league college football. This case looks at how Penn State lost its way. How could this situation have been defused earlier or avoided? Answer: This entire scandal could have been avoided if Paterno (or someone above him) had the courage (or motivation) to turn Sandusky in to the local sheriff once it became obvious he was abusing young boys. No one knew Sandusky was a pedophile, but once it was discovered, he should have been turned in, arrested, and tried. That would have stopped 14 years of abuse. What role did politics play in the many critical decisions made along the way? Answer: The case was wrapped in politics from the beginning. A local district attorney disappeared before he could investigate or bring charges. The state attorney general who didn’t prosecute Sandusky was running for governor and couldn’t risk alienating Penn State fans by exposing what was going on at their school. Another interesting political development is the timing of the actual break of the case. It came the week after Paterno had won his 409th game—surpassing Eddie Robinson of Grambling for the most victories by a football coach. It seems the authorities wanted to give Paterno one more gift before blowing him out of the water. Could Joe Paterno have stopped this in 1998? How? Answer: In the context of the scandal involving former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno, which erupted in 2011, it's important to note that there were allegations of child sexual abuse against assistant coach Jerry Sandusky dating back to 1998. Paterno's role in addressing these allegations has been the subject of much scrutiny and debate. In 1998, a mother reported to the university police that Sandusky had showered with her son and engaged in inappropriate behavior. The police investigated, but the district attorney at the time decided not to press charges. Paterno, as the head coach and a prominent figure at Penn State, was made aware of these allegations. Could Joe Paterno have stopped this in 1998? It's difficult to say definitively, as hindsight is always clearer than the reality of the moment. However, there were potential actions Paterno could have taken to address the situation more effectively: 1. Report to Higher Authorities: Paterno could have escalated the matter to higher authorities within the university or law enforcement agencies, ensuring that appropriate action was taken to investigate the allegations thoroughly and protect potential victims. 2. Suspension or Investigation of Sandusky: Paterno had significant influence within the Penn State football program. He could have advocated for Sandusky to be suspended pending further investigation or for measures to be implemented to prevent him from having unsupervised access to children associated with the program. 3. Public Acknowledgment of Concerns: Paterno could have publicly acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations and expressed concern for the welfare of the alleged victims. By using his platform to address the issue openly, he could have helped raise awareness and pressure for a thorough investigation. 4. Cooperation with Authorities: Paterno could have cooperated fully with law enforcement and child protection agencies, providing any information or assistance needed to ensure a comprehensive investigation into the allegations against Sandusky. Ultimately, whether Paterno could have stopped the abuse in 1998 is uncertain. However, there is widespread consensus that he and other university officials failed to take sufficient action to address the allegations, leading to further instances of abuse occurring over the following years. Paterno's failure to intervene effectively contributed to the perpetuation of the abuse and the subsequent scandal that rocked Penn State and the world of college athletics. Why did PSU “kick the problem down the road” for so long? Answer: Timing had a lot to do with it. Penn State (and Paterno) was not doing well in football during the early days of the scandal. Calls for the aging coach to retire were rampant. Had the Sandusky mess surfaced during this time, then Paterno would likely been forced out. By sitting on the problem for 14 years, he probably saved his job and his shot at 409 victories. What might The Second Mile have done to mitigate this mess? Answer: The Second Mile was in a tough spot. Sandusky was its founder and chief fundraiser. That he might be abusing the boys (not yet proved) put that board of directors between a rock and a hard place. To call him out would destroy the charity in all likelihood. To ignore what was going on was immoral and criminal. Forced to chose its poison, the charity selected slow death over sudden. Only the little boys suffered more. After reading the grand jury presentation, what do you think of Penn State’s response? Answer: Penn State’s decision to order the Freeh Report was a major step in the right direction. The president’s decision to accept the report, along with all the consequences, was a bold one. Deciding to take fines, lost scholarships, and victories from the NCAA also took courage. The situation can’t get any better until the university accepts that its culture allowed all this to happen. If accrediting bodies find that Penn State is noncompliant, and the schools lose accreditation, Pell Grants, student loans, etc., then the university is in a major bind. Did anyone do the right thing? For any reason? Answer: The assistant coach tried to do the right thing. He talked to his father, then to Paterno. That nothing happened after that is a shame. Many people wish the assistant coach had found a chair and clubbed Sandusky with it when he caught him in the shower with the little boy. That would have been the right thing for the right reason. Case 10-3 CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS: NIKE AND APPLE FACE SIMILAR CHALLENGES A DECADE APART As the largest supplier of athletic and leisure apparel, Nike is constantly under scrutiny from one group or another. Primarily the attention derives from Nike’s practice of farming out the manufacturer of its goods to contract shops in lesser-developed nations. This case looks at the ethical considerations of these business decisions and examines Nike’s efforts to present itself in the court of public opinion. Of particular concern is the legal case—Nike v. Kasky—which has the potential to affect the entire public relations industry and overturn such landmark cases as First National Bank of Boston vs. Bellotti. Does Nike have a responsibility to monitor working conditions in plants owned and operated by contractors? Why? Answer: Nike does have that responsibility because society expects it. Nike profits come from the sale of shoes and apparel produced in third-world countries. Its name and famous “swoosh” are on those goods, which makes Nike responsible for their production. A cardinal rule of public relations is “if you are involved in the problem, then the public expects you to be part of the solution.” That goes doubly for large, visible brands such as Nike, Coca-Cola, General Electric or General Motors. These corporate giants have the resources to do something about most problems and the public knows it. Therefore, a fiduciary responsibility exists, even absent a legal one. Many companies will “hide behind” the law or ignorance when faced with decisions on such factors as working conditions in contract plants. In today’s world, activists, competitors, and the media will not permit ducking of responsibility. The public relations counselor who recognizes this will earn his or her salary many times over by properly advising the company executives of this fact. Is “low wage is better than no wage” a sound public relations strategy for Nike? Why? Answer: That comment will resonate with some practical thinkers, but not at all with critics, defenders of third-world workers, activists, and media types. Many people love to ignore the realities of the third world, instead seeking conditions similar to those we enjoy in the United States. Many consumers have no better perspective than their own lives, so they can relate to the critics. Further, most people do not want to understand third-world realities. It is easier to complain about those who seem to exploit workers in low-income nations than to do some homework and find out if the conditions there really constitute abuse as we know it here. Perceptions, unclouded by facts, are easily maintained. Therefore, claiming a low wage is better than no wage is going to fall on many deaf ears. For this position to have any meaning, Nike would have to first get an audience ready and willing to hear “the truth” and then compile some compelling information to show how Nike’s overseas contracts are making living in these countries better for those workers. The first half of this assumption is more difficult than the second. They will wind up preaching to the choir or being drowned out by critics comparing third-world conditions to those of suburban America. What role did falling stock prices and dwindling sales play in Nike’s strategy and actions? Answer: Nike, obviously, has to be aware of declining sales and declining stock values. To what extent these are attributable to problems with third-world working conditions is something that must be examined. There may be no causal relationship at all or they could be directly related. Only intelligent research will yield the answers. In the past few years, Nike stocks have recovered. Product boycotts are seldom successful from a financial standpoint, but frequently cause enough embarrassment to be effective in creating change. For Nike, the cause/effect question is relevant to the working conditions situation. But this situation is also linked to the company’s moral/ethical creed. Is this the way Nike wants to do business? Is this how it wants to make its money? Possibly Nike wants to improve conditions because they need improving—not because profits are slipping and options are less valuable. Is the working environment in a contract shoe plant an operational or a public relations problem? Answer: It is an operational problem with public relations overtones. Since activists have raised the issue, Nike must deal with it. First, the problem must be handled from an operational perspective—improve conditions, make changes for the better, or find different suppliers. Once accomplished, it then becomes a public relations responsibility to use the new conditions to rebuild relationships and establish the reputation of the company as one that cares enough to make a change and make a difference. What purpose would it have served for Apple to sue Mr. Daisey? Answer: No real benefit would have resulted for Apple. Daisey probably doesn’t have enough money to pay a judgment. The mainstream press had discredited his reporting. Keeping the charges alive for days, weeks, even months would be counter-productive. Daisey probably knew that, too. That’s why it is a bitter, if correct, decision to let him go. What are the ethical considerations of doing business in a country that treat its employees significantly differently than we do here in the US, even if it is in keeping with the culture of that country? Answer: Few countries around the world have the standards (and the standard of living) of the US. Most less-fortunate countries have standards that pale in comparison to the US. Doing business with those countries requires (a) a sensitivity to local customs and mores and (b) sensitivity to how the world looks at your being there. If conditions in these areas are truly deplorable, an ethical company will upgrade them to not go there in the first place. Improving conditions won’t always make you popular, particularly in third-world nations where despots profit by an undereducated and exploited population. What would have been the pros and cons you would have presented Apple’s management with regarding suing Mr. Daisey? Answer: Anyone with a glimmer of reality would see that suing Mr. Daisey is pointless. There are no pros for suing this kook. You only give him exposure and publicity. You damage Apple’s reputation by prolonging Daisey’s specious claims. You risk “doth protest too much” syndrome. If kicking his butt in court gave Apple some pleasure and revenge, the reality of the situation would mitigate against even getting even with him. Let him crawl back under his rock and sweep up the slimy trail he leaves behind. Case 10-4 DOW CORNING AND BREAST IMPLANTS: DEALING WITH THE PERCEPTION OF DECEPTION Product recalls, if done voluntarily and graciously, can enhance the credibility of the manufacturer. Unfortunately, the fear of expensive legal judgments usually prevents companies from admitting to defects in their products. Fighting things out in court usually means that final judgments are rendered years after the controversy has died down in the media. In the meantime, the manufacturer has typically suffered extensive damage to its reputation. Manufacturing firms should always place customer safety ahead of profits when their products come under question. Nevertheless, product recalls are sometimes not necessary or even appropriate in response to consumer complaints. There are as many instances in which manufacturers have been victimized by fraudulent consumer complaints as there are of consumers who have been endangered by faulty products. Dow Corning fumbled this crisis because it found it difficult to initially show concern for the recipients of breast implants while still maintaining a legal stance that endorsed the safety of the product. What could the company have done differently to keep this issue from rising to the epic proportions it did in the public arena? Could the entire issue have been avoided through appropriate communications? Answer: Dow Corning might have acted in 1991, when the Marianne Hopkins case was filed, as it did in 1992—setting up a $10 million research fund to determine the safety of implants and expressing a willingness to pay up to $1200 per patient (based on financial need) to have silicon-gel implants removed. As in 1992, it could take these actions while still maintaining that the implants were safe. This action would demonstrate good motives on the part of the company and concern for the women involved. It is unlikely that the issue could have been entirely avoided, regardless of the corrective action on the part of Dow Corning. The $10 million in research might provide the evidence that Dow Corning lacked in 1991—incontrovertible data which show that the silicon-gel implants were safe. The willingness to pay for removal of the implants would still the emotions of women who felt “trapped” after becoming concerned about their implants, financially unable to remove them. This does not mean that women would cease believing that the implants were the cause of physical ailments they began to experience while they were in place. Can a company act unethically and still maintain credibility? Why or why not? Can you think of examples one way or the other? And is it unethical to withdraw a product from the public when there is no proof of a problem, thus denying the public access to the product? Answer: Companies, like individuals, cannot hurt others for their own benefit. If a company has evidence that its product is dangerous and does nothing about it, the behavior will ultimately threaten its credibility. In 1989, Beech-Nut Nutrition Co. was found guilty of selling adulterated and misbranded apple juice for babies. Parents who thought that they were buying pure apple juice for their babies were buying little more than flavored water. The firm was lucky enough to lose no more than four percent of its share of the overall baby food market as a result of the publicity accompanying the charges of fraud. This is not to say that a company cannot take a hard-nosed position when facing demands for a product recall. Gerber Products was able to do this in 1986, when it faced 227 complaints of broken glass in baby food jars. Gerber stood firm behind its quality control methods in production and was backed by a test of 40,000 unopened baby food jars conducted by the Food & Drug Administration. Gerber even filed a $150 lawsuit against the governor of Maryland, who had ordered jars of its strained peaches off the shelf. In 1993, Pepsi actually received favorable media coverage when it exposed fraud on the part of consumers who claimed they found needles or syringes in Pepsi soft drinks. Pepsi was able to capitalize on a retail store video which revealed the complainant obviously tampering with a Pepsi container prior to making the complaint. Several companies manufacture implants. It is surgeons who suggest them to women and perform the operation. Yet only Dow Corning drew unfavorable public reaction. Why? Answer: As the case study suggests, Dow Corning was “one of the most visible manufacturers of silicone-gel implants.” Brand leaders with deep pockets are prime targets in class-action, product-liability suits. Once litigation is underway, there are legal means to acquire the kind of confidential documents from manufacturers which led to the questioning of Dow’s assurances of safety for its implant products. In this instance, public recognition was not helpful, but harmful. Dow is a fairly well-known corporation, and its size and familiarity made it an easier public target than faceless, nameless surgeons. On the local level Dow may not have been the only one to suffer public censure—but because they are so widely recognized, the corporation made the media hit list far and wide. On the national level, the public would not be as likely to hear about the lawsuits against individual doctors or community healthcare facilities. Dow was unlucky enough to draw the national attention to its household name. Whose responsibility is it to inform women who are interested in having breast implants of the risks of the procedure? Why do you believe this? Answer: Obviously, there may be different answers to this question due to personal beliefs. All answers should be considered and discussed. However, the only individual who comes into direct contact with women having breast implants is the doctor. There is face-to-face communication, in most instances, between the surgeon and the patient before the procedure, which gives the doctors the obvious responsibility of informing their patients of any known risks associated with breast implants. Dow Corning manufactures breast implants, but does not handle the procedure of implanting them. Dow Corning has no direct communication or interaction with any patients at any time. Therefore, it should not be the company’s responsibility to ensure that the patients receive information about potential risks. As with any surgical procedure, the physician would want to be informed as to any risks involved, and would in turn want to pass that information on to the patients. It seems clear that the surgeons carry responsibility for informing women of the risks. 5. What are the ethical implications now that it has been found by scientific study that there is no known health effect of the implants? What are the implications for Dow Corning? Answer: From an ethics standpoint, Dow Corning should feel some vindication because its professional reputation had been questions and impugned. That’s some consolation to a company that had to take bankruptcy to avoid specious legal judgments. For women looking toward breast implants in the future, the scientific findings are good news, indeed. While Dow Corning has no future interest in implant manufacture, it can go about its other business segments with a happy heart, knowing it wasn’t responsible for the illness and inconvenience alleged in the legal actions. For customers of Dow Corning’s other products, they, too, can take comfort and confidence from the scientific findings, knowing Dow Corning is an ethical company that produces safe products when used properly. While a little late in coming, the scientific evidence is still VERY good news for Dow Corning. Does the ultimate vindication of Dow Corning and silicone implants change your perspective on this case? Answer: It certainly should. While the legal wheels in our society turn relatively quickly, driven by plaintiff lawyers striking while the iron is hot, the wheels of medical research grind very slowly. Now that the facts are out, it seems those with implants have a statistically insignificant chance of getting sick compared to those with no implants. In other words, there is no causal relationship between implants and these women’s problems. What started out looking like Dow Corning’s lack of candor and culpability now seems like a rush to judgment by the legal system. The editorial in Dow Corning’s local paper says it all. Problem 10-A WHETHER TO BLOW THE WHISTLE You are the editor of the main publication for employees for one of the three largest not-for-profit hospitals in the country. You have done well and at the end of your second year find that most decisions are yours to make when it comes to the publication. The only intervention you have ever had was from your boss at the end of your first year. She told you to get three competitive printing bids annually and then award the contract for the next year to one of the three. You note that this bid is not the lowest, but your boss assures you this printer is worth it because of the quality of the work and its generous financial contributions to the hospital. At that time you followed the directions of your boss. You and the printer have become socially acquainted attending dinners at the local country club together. You have also noticed that the printer is close with your boss and the hospital’s director of development and they have received entertainment and gifts from the printer. One evening, by coincidence, you overhear a conversation that indicates that your boss’s husband is the brother of the printer’s wife and that your boss has had some sort of financial interest in the firm. This is information you did not know. In addition, you heard that the director of development’s daughter has also worked at the printing firm, rumored to be making much more than any other clerical staff at the firm. All of this information brings new dilemmas and is naturally upsetting. To top it off, the competitive printing bids have come in this week and the printer you have been told to favor is 20 percent higher than the lowest bidder. You have every right to be upset and are in a quandary. If you grant the business for the coming year, amounting to $60,000, to the highest bidder, and someone in the treasurer’s office questions it, you could be in big trouble. If you tell the present printer he has to submit a second bid—a figure 50 percent lower—you will be in contravention of the hospital’s stated policy and crossing ethical boundaries. Beyond that, what if one of the other bidders finds out and turns in a complaint to the consumer advocate in the state’s attorney general’s office? If you take the matter to your boss, you may have to confront her with what you have heard about an apparent conflict of interest on her part. An alternative to this situation would be to go over the boss’s head to the director of development, who has also accepted favors from the printer on a social basis. She may not want to get involved or may be involved in helping the printer get work from other departments in the hospital. If so, where does that leave you? You could approach the hospital administrator. However, if you bypass your superiors, you could risk the chance of creating a very unhappy working situation—or be out looking for a new position. Finally, if you do nothing, are you committed to a standard of honesty or business ethics that you can live with? Everything considered, what are you going to do—specifically, in what sequence, with what goals, and with what personal strategy and tactics? Answer: This situation most definitely causes ethical dilemmas for the young publication editor at the hospital. Besides this being a conflict of interest for the parties involved, he or she represents an organization that is supported by public money; it is a nonprofit hospital and therefore has obligations to the public in justifying how it spends its money. Clearly the editor should have not gone along with the boss’s suggestions the first year choosing the printer. This already put the editor in a questionable situation. However, before he or she takes any action, it would probably be a good idea to go to his or her boss to confirm this information overheard at a party. It is possible that he or she could have heard wrong. This puts the situation in his or her boss’s hands. If the boss still insists that the editor take the favored printer’s bid, he or she is faced with a variety of scenarios: going to the director of development going to the supervisor of both the boss and the director of development making a decision on his or her own and accepting the consequences whatever they may be quitting on the spot to avoid the conflict altogether Obviously these options are all weighted differently according to the editor’s past experiences. However, the Public Relations Society of America does give good guidelines for ethical behavior in its PRSA Code of Ethics. Some that especially apply in this situation: A member should not accept fees, commissions, or gifts from anyone except clients and employers or those they have done a service for. A member must report someone known to have violated the code of ethics. A member must sever relationship with any organization or individuals who require this type of unethical conduct. Problem 10-B WRITE THE TRUTH OR “MAKE US LOOK GOOD”? This practitioner has a personal moral dilemma. He has accepted a job that places him inside a company that does good work, but asks him to violate his professional and personal standards. His options are (a) to go along and get along, (b) to try to improve the corporate culture, or (c) quit before he, too, becomes jaded and tainted by this experience and this environment. The first assignment—the news release announcing a new funding project—should not create much angst. While the boss wants the release to “make us look good,” that is probably inherent in an announcement of thousands of dollars to a worthy cause. There is no need to conjure up more of a story because the truth will be as good as (or better than) any fiction the writer could create. The larger problem is, should s/he continue to work in this place? Is it unethical to disparage the unfortunate while at the same time donating large sums of money to them? Is there anything wrong with going for the most “bang” while ignoring causes that might have more need? Who decides which organization is the most needy, anyway? What are the criteria for such selections? Is there anything unethical or immoral about wanting to burnish the organization’s image? Is that part of the reason this person was hired? The answer lies in research, which can help sort out the answers to these questions. Among the questions that need to be answered are: What is the giving history of the organization? How much money is given away annually? How is the organization perceived in the community? Why? Where did the organization’s funding originate? Are there any restrictions on its use? What is the corporate culture of this organization? Are sarcastic remarks a sign of an unhealthy culture or just irreverent humor enjoyed by a few employees? What are the prospects of changing any or all of these conditions? Once the questions are answered, the practitioner’s choice will probably be obvious. If the organization has a history of funding the needy in a fair and decent manner, this might overcome some lapses in personal sensitivity. But if the organization is less than ethical, then s/he might want to look for a better opportunity. Solution Manual for Public Relations Practices: Managerial Case Studies and Problems Allen H. Center, Patrick Jackson, Stacey Smith, Frank R. Stansberry 9780132341363, 9780136138037, 9780130981530, 9780137384778