BackIn this increasingly complicated world, where the relative political certainties of the Cold War era grow fainter by the day, Britain is far from impervious to dubious foreign influence. This may be anything from recent reports of China allegedly trying to buy influence over our MPs to overseas powers such as the Kremlin infiltrating our businesses, politics and society.
The PR industry has been accused of many wrongdoings, but following a previous research paper from Chatham House on the UK’s kleptocracy problem, PRs are now accused of weakening the rule of law by servicing post-Soviet elites.
Chatham House, a leading policy institute based in London, put the PR industry firmly on the naughty step. Its paper claimed that, after securing residency and acquiring wealth in the UK, kleptocrats try to gain traction in British society by managing their reputation through PR agents, forging ties with political, business and other leaders and stifling reporting of alleged wrongdoing.
The paper outlined the three main ways in which image management and influencing occur. The first is reputation laundering via philanthropy. Second, are libel actions and threats to journalists and researchers. The third nail in the coffin is the way post-Soviet elites have made political friends and entered high-society networks through the funding of political parties.
UK law firms can argue the right to representation when accused of enabling the kleptocracy. The legal profession plays an important role that is fundamental to democracy. The right to legal counsel and representation is enshrined and protected by international law – and rightly so. However, where do PR firms stand and does a right to communicate equally resonate when freedom of expression is also a key pillar of democracy?
A negative archetype for the PR industry has been firmly established in the collective consciousness due to high-profile collapses of firms engaged in wrongful behaviour, such as Bell Pottinger and Cambridge Analytica. The blame for the actions of post-Soviet individuals may, therefore, be disproportionately placed on the PR industry. PR firms who cross the line in their work for certain figures should be condemned, but it needs to be clear that there are other dynamics at the root of the overseas-influence problem, not just dodgy PR firms.
Firstly, philanthropic donations made by rich business tycoons to bolster their image have been the modus operandi for centuries – long before PR agencies were invented. Slave traders in the 17th century who amassed fortunes, such as Edward Colston, donated their ill-gotten gains from crimes against humanity to a number of causes. His philanthropy led to him being celebrated. His statue (the 17th-century version of a press release) looked down on the inhabitants of Bristol for years, until it was toppled during a Black Lives Matter protest. Charities are increasingly conscious of the reputational risk of taking donations from dubious sources due to the public and media backlash. The sector is aware that trust is its ultimate currency and is rightly evolving its position on taking large sums of money from those with murky financial backgrounds. Charities are now arming themselves with robust guidelines and independent donor scrutiny committees as a matter of their own survival. This will increasingly become the norm.
UK universities and think tanks (unlike in the US) are not required to make donors, amounts or any conditions public. Transparency is key here and even if there is no legal requirement, wise institutions would proactively declare such information to build stakeholder trust. There should also be a legal requirement to check the sources of wealth behind a political donation as we are operating in a hyper global world where the sources of money from the private sector and state can be ambiguous, to say the least in some countries.
One of the greatest strengths of the UK is how open we are as a nation, with London at the helm of diverse and dynamic cities in the world. However, the very social and political institutions that bolster the soft power of our nation can be undermined by inflows of donations from a global marketplace and, therefore, misshape our institutions if there is malintent. Creating a culture of transparency of donations, twinned with regulation, is the driver to protect our world-class institutions. Universities are battling the loss of government funding, tech disruption and the impact of COVID, which leads to a financial vulnerability that can be exploited.
Secondly, the wealthy can, and do, weaponise their wealth by taking legal action against those who are making allegations against them. This is often a far more powerful – and certainly more harmful – way of trying to prevent negative stories than using PRs. The media industry has sadly weakened over the years – as advertising revenues have flowed into the pockets of Big Tech. For every big media house with robust legal teams, there are hundreds – if not thousands – of media outlets that are often in a weakened position due to the wealth disparity. Raising awareness of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) will bring about the reverse in terms of reputation management – as the public baulk at the injustice. They are cases taken not for their legal merit, but for the effect of silencing a critic by locking them into a long legal struggle. Super injunctions, over time, became a protective measure for wealthy celebrities and – as public awareness of them grew – it became a reputational liability, as it drew public ire. Meanwhile, gagging orders are also falling rapidly out of favour.
PR firms are increasingly likely to look through an ethics lens when taking on clients – as millennials and Gen-Xers have been vocal about working with agencies and on clients’ projects that share their values. Other clients in an agency’s portfolio may also object if they feel it is working with organisations they do not wish to have associated with their brand. This has led to some firms taking on such work and others refusing to work with them.
Ethics in the PR industry can be more nuanced than simply who you work for. It is often evaluated on a deeper level, such as the outcome and impact of the actual project. Adherence to ethical guidelines and compulsory ethics modules is mandated by our industry bodies. The PR industry, rightfully so, is increasingly mindful of the critical role it plays in society – as the new frontline of global politics has moved into areas such as misinformation and disinformation. Now more than ever, with PR professionals outnumbering journalists, we need to focus on self-reflection and awareness of the impact of our work.
We are grappling with key questions such as the reputational vulnerabilities that arise when professional service firms are heavily criticised for being enablers? Should firms be shamed into turning away clients with unsavoury allegations against them, but no conviction? Particularly if they are from countries where it’s not uncommon for organisations to place false stories in the press about rivals? Do we no longer believe in a right to representation? What about those who have done wrong in their past? Are they not entitled to a redemption story?
We are also living in a world where ‘innocent until proven guilty’ no longer applies in the public sphere. Allegations are instantly believed, acted upon in a knee-jerk manner with livelihoods decimated and reputations destroyed in minutes. By the time the slow march of due process comes lumbering around, and it turns out the allegations were false, it is too late. The baying mob have moved on to the next spectacle. As we contemplate these questions, remember there was a time when Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist and also a time when Edward Coulson was considered a great man. We should tread carefully when we seek to break the ethos of the right to represent and the right to communicate. However, as professional service firms, we should take the responsibility of thinking critically about our client portfolio and whether we are enabling harm to society by furthering the goals of those who have malintent toward values we hold dear such as democracy and truth. We should also focus on building transparency in our institutions around donations to strengthen them and protect them from harmful influences. Dirty money has strategically become weaponised to undermine nations in this new world order.
Just don’t shoot the messenger.
