PRSA Beps Ethical Quotient (EQ) Test

Explanation
Disclosure: If Ms. Wilson, the beauty technician, continues to allow customers to call her “Doc,” she must affirmatively and regularly clarify, in the customer’s mind, what kind of doctor she is.

Deception: Even if it seems preposterous, disclosure is an issue because it prevents deception. Our assumption almost always is that doctors are doctors of medicine. This is doubly important, because, in this case, this person may very well be going into people’s homes with the new home selling parties concept. In that informal atmosphere, it is less likely that Ms. Wilson would clarify her actual status. This is a situation where she absolutely must clarify her status. Besides, the explanation may make a pretty good story.

Explanation
Disclosure: Despite the fact that celebrities may not like it to be known that they are paid for these engagements and endorsements, that information should be disclosed and, ideally, the amount of the payment would also be disclosed. While our personal paychecks are often considered very private information, public figures have very little private information, including what they are paid. If this information would help one consumer have the opportunity to pause before they made an important purchase decision, it would be well worth the exposure and effort. Those celebrities who decline to have their pay disclosed might be passed over for those who would.

Explanation
Moral Issues (including public safety): The medical environment provides more conundrums and dilemmas than almost any other. It is an environment dominated by doctors who are, by their nature and training, very independent spirits, entrepreneurial, and taught to exercise extraordinary independence. When these individuals get into trouble, all of those around them tend to back away and begin covering up, making excuses, alibiing, and generally allowing these physicians to continue their privileges. These issues go well beyond disclosure and misrepresentation. People’s lives and health may be at stake. Failure to deal with these physicians promptly and directly is both an ethical and a moral lapse. In confronting these issues, additional crucial problems are likely to surface and need to be immediately addressed.

Explanation
Deception, possible fraud: Medical information, especially that appearing in medical journals, is trusted implicitly. The issue of the author/physician submitting information and failing to disclose his own personal conflict of interest is overshadowed by the medical publication’s attempting to hide the need to investigate information. The publication’s audience should be alerted immediately if any medical information previously published is suspect. There have been cases where scientific information has been published, then later withdrawn from very prestigious publications. In a number of cases, public policy and legislation came into being as a result of bogus scientific information published and later withdrawn. The physician’s transgression is obvious—his secretly being paid by one side and getting recognition from his peers for his publications, is all based on a failure to disclose. The GMJ’s failure to disclose promptly is the more egregious, ethics offense.

Explanation
Competition: The purpose of this principle is to “promote respect and fair competition among public relations professionals.” One key ingredient of this core principle is the “preservation of intellectual property rights in a marketplace.” This includes those of competitors.

Fairness: Be committed to “deal fairly with clients, employers, competitors, peers, vendors, the media, and the general public” knowing using material from a competitor, by itself, let alone the entire issue lack of acknowledgement of ownership, which is plagiarism, one could speculate that a different outcome from this search might have occurred had the competitive presentation been made without the material belonging to the losing agency.

Honesty: If we adhere to the “highest standards of accuracy and truth in advancing the interests of those we represent,” clearly this situation illustrates a serious problem. Investigation reveals that an individual from your agency provided this material at the request of a friend at a competing agency. Neither disclosed that the information had been shared, presumably because neither expected the information to come to light, regardless of who won the client.

Explanation
Conflict of interest: The employee should refuse to appear in advertising that is in direct competition with one of her company’s subsidiaries. An employee should strive to avoid potential conflict of interest situations when choosing to work outside of the company for whom they are employed. Outside work should conform to or enhance the effective performance of existing job responsibilities. The employee could have sought permission and disclose her outside opportunity to her employer. Approval is probably a long shot, but the consequences of the conflict and other ethical issues could have a far greater potential for damage.

Disclosure: This problem could have been mitigated easily if she had asked a person in a position of authority in her company, probably her boss, how she might actually do this job in ways that would avoid conflicts with her company’s products, services, and reputation. If the boss had refused permission or denied authorization for her to do it, she would be obligated to turn down the other gig’s offer.

Moral issues are also at play in this scenario but they are not Code provisions.

Explanation
Disclosure: Proper disclosure should have been made by noting all attendees on the expense report filed with the company. Tax laws these days are pretty clear about these types of activities, especially when they occur outside business hours and normal business activities. Generally, reporting and tax requirements require participants to be listed. In this case, disclosure was intentionally avoided either to protect the manager present at the gathering or to avoid complying with a company rule or regulation.

Moral issues are also at play here but they are not a code provision.

Explanation
Disclosure: Appropriate credit should have been given to the author of the presentation located from the Web. The use of the three pages goes well beyond the copyright concept of “Fair Use.” Because the author of the presentation had not received appropriate credit and given prior authorization to display, and the agency employee had represented another’s work product as his own, and plagiarism had occurred.

Enhancing the profession: Building respect and credibility for the public relations profession is the obligation of every ethical practitioner, and is the result of observing the elements of this Code. When the Code, common sense, or sense of rightness is replaced by wrongness, the profession is demeaned and diminished.

Explanation
Conflict of Interest: Here again, it is the client that decides what is a conflict of interest. Certainly, representing both competing clients can create many conflict of interest situations. Imagine that you are contacted by a journalist at the Wall Street Journal who informs you that he is going to do a feature article an a Caribbean country (Client A) and asks your advice as to which other country he should write about in contrast to Client A. What country would you propose? Why? Would you be obligated to always recommend Client A and Client B? In each of these cases, each client would need to be apprised of the opportunities and be allowed to decide which were conflicts and which were not.

Disclosure of Information: The intent of the Disclosure of Information provision of the PRSA Code is to both build trust and to avoid deceptive practices. Inevitably, whether you advise Client A, Client B, or both, both clients will find out that you are representing each of them. Serious issues of trust and conflict could be raised, potentially by both clients. You will most certainly lose the trust both clients had in you by being deceptive. Typically, most requests for proposals (RFPs) ask for information to force disclosure of possible conflicting clients. Failing to reveal your relationship with Client A would be deceptive and unethical.

You should inform both parties of the situation and ask if either of them have an objection. Only a client can determine if there is a conflict. Your objectivity would be suspect due to your financial interest. The clients should make all conflict determinations. If either or both have a problem, you then decide whether you will keep Client A and not participate in the pitch of Client B or resign the account of Client A and move forward with Client B. You may also create a flanking sister company but you will have to make sure you prohibit all interaction between the two companies, both Client A and Client B must be informed of this approach, and both clients must approve.

Honesty: You have an affirmative obligation to inform Client A that you have been asked to and intend to participate in this competition for Client B. Failure to inform Client A of the possibility that you might be working for Client B, a competitor, is an issue of loyalty and honesty. It is the client that always defines what loyalty is and what it entails. A discussion with Client A could produce a surprising result, e.g., Client A might be very amenable (within certain limitations) to allowing you to work with Client B. Failure to ask, and get clarification and permission, is the unethical conduct here.

Explanation
Honesty: We adhere to the highest standards of accuracy and truth in advancing the interests of those we represent and that includes our employer or company. The dilemma here is does obligation to company supersede honesty to friends and coworkers?

Loyalty: We are faithful to those we represent and to our friends. The same question arises here, loyalty has to be more clearly defined, especially when the actions of another are questionable and, by disclosing to you, that individual has brought someone in to be their coconspirator.

It gets trickier because of a possible conflict of values. On the one hand, honesty demands that you do all you possibly can to prevent wrong doing from taking place and, on the other hand, you have to be loyal to your friend and safeguard his (or her) confidence. Confronting the supervisor without revealing your source might expose your colleague who came to you in trust.

Furthermore, word will get around that you cannot be trusted to keep confidences and colleagues will stop coming to speak to you. Reporting what you heard to the CEO might very well lead to the firing of your colleague. You only have the allegation of one employee. Furthermore, the alleged action has yet to take place. You should take the necessary steps to prevent the deceptive transaction and recommend to senior management that new financial controls or procedures be established to prevent such an attempt in the future. By preventing the deception and recommending new controls, you are safeguarding the interest of the company, protecting the confidentiality of your friend, and you avoid becoming an involuntary coconspirator in what may well turn out to be an act that breaks rules, regulations, or even laws.

Explanation
We as a professional community are the primary beneficiaries of our ethics, which permit us to self-identify our role in society by publicly defining our voluntary relationship with society. Our ethics clarify what our professional community has agreed to be the parameters of our professional conduct, even though a society’s legal code and moral norms may allow behavior that extends beyond our professional community’s self-declared ethical boundaries.

Explanation
Public relations practitioners who voluntarily join a professional community through a formal structured association such as PRSA, agree to bind themselves to a Code of Professional Conduct. The Code establishes guidelines for ethical behavior as defined by the professional group.

Explanation
This would constitute a “code of behavior.” A code of ethics specifically codifies a group’s relationship to society. Of course, ethics codes must be within a society’s legal parameters and moral norms; however, within those boundaries, society allows professional groups the freedom to determine their role in society by publicly defining their relationship with society.

Explanation
Corporations have all requisite characteristics to be considered moral agents and must bear responsibility as corporate citizens. Corporations must control their actions and can make rational decisions. Furthermore, corporations usually have a range of options available, and they have the capacity to make reasoned choices from among those options. Thus, corporate entities as a whole must be held accountable for the moral choices that their leaders make.