Introduction
It is important to note that ethics and adherence to ethical conduct are cornerstones of business ethics. The case is centered around Burson-Marsteller (B-M), which is a public relations (PR) company known today as Burson Cohn & Wolfe, but since the case focuses on past actions of the firm, the former title will be used. It justified its assistance to the cruel Argentine government through a utilitarian perspective of bringing the greatest good for most people appealing to the utilitarian normative theory. The given analysis will view B-M’s business activities and endeavors through both utilitarian as well as Kantian or deontological normative perspectives of ethics. Both ethical frameworks clearly indicate that B-M’s business activities in helping foreign governments as well as large U.S. corporations cannot be justified through both theories.
Business Ethics in PR Industry
It should be stated that the nature of the business of PR agencies, such as the case of B-M, is inherently problematic because their services are necessary only when a client company experiences a controversy or collapse. It can be perceived analogously to being a lawyer, who might offer his or her services to criminals in order to ensure that the punishment is not excessive and their rights are not violated by persecutors. Essentially, B-M stepped in whenever its clients were in trouble, and the current Burson Cohn & Wolfe operates in the same manner.
Burson-Marsteller and Kantian Theory
From the deontological normative perspective on ethics, an action is judged as right or wrong on the basis of the action itself, irrespective of the actors or consequences. The Kantian deontological theory puts a great deal of emphasis on the concept of duty or ‘Deon’ (Byars & Stanberry, 2018). In other words, there is a need to assess the consequences because ethics and morality can be analyzed through the action itself. The mere fact that Burson-Marsteller cooperated with a cruel regime of the Argentine government during the 1970s and 1980s is unethical in itself (Rodríguez-Salcedo & Gómez-Baceiredo, 2017). Business ethics dictates that human rights are fundamental and, thus, must not be violated by any entrepreneurial or business goals (Sandel, 2009). The company was well-aware of the cruelty and immorality of the Argentinian dictatorial rule, but it has chosen to cooperate with it, nonetheless making it guilty by association.
In accordance with deontology, B-M, as a business, is responsible and carries a duty to prioritize the human rights of people over its own profit, which is deeply rooted in corporate social responsibility (CSR). Therefore, the act of partnering with or helping a foreign dictatorship well-known for committing atrocities against its own people makes the action itself highly unethical. No amount of justification by B-M offered to minimize its role can turn the situation to become ethical in business terms. For example, the company claimed that it had no role in working with the military or law enforcement of the government (Rodríguez-Salcedo & Gómez-Baceiredo, 2017). However, the deontological perspective does not consider it a valid excuse since it is not concerned with consequences but with the act itself. Even if the stated fact was true, B-M would have no place to emerge from this cooperation as an ethical business.
Burson-Marsteller and Utilitarian Theory
One should be aware that the utilitarian normative theory of ethics is about consequences. According to utilitarianism, the morality or goodness of an action is determined by the extent to which it maximized the total good compared to total harm (Sandel, 2009). In other words, utilitarianism is strictly based on the principle of utility, which is about yielding the greatest happiness for everyone impacted by the action or decision. Burson-Marsteller’s assistance to the government of Argentine was justified by the company as having no impact or influence on the military and law enforcement oppressions of the local population. B-M essentially attempted to state that their decision was not related to the suffering endured by the people, which implied that there is a net good in terms of profits gained by the company and brought to the US.
In order to accurately understand the utilitarian merits and harms of B-M’s case, it is vital to overview what the company itself claimed. Firstly, it stated that B-M is in the business of helping organizations to survive through challenging situations and times (Source Watch, 2019). Secondly, it objected to criticisms by claiming that the company was helping to stabilize the situation in Argentine since civil war would lead to more deaths and suffering (Source Watch, 2019). Thirdly, there is an implied benefit of allowing American PR agencies to work with wealthy clients since it brings profits to the US and benefits the public through taxes. Thus, such an attitude to controversies can be observed with respect to the Argentine government case, where B-M used utilitarianism to justify its association with the dictatorial and cruel regime. This change from overt abandonment of ethics to the covert provision of service makes it more unethical.
Managing and improving the reputation of the Argentinian regime enabled the state to survive for long since an enhanced international image meant an ability to cooperate and partner with other nations. B-M indirectly financed and supported the dictatorial rule, which incurred massive suffering and pain for the local population, and it undermined the will of the people. Although there is no moral issue with B-M’s or PR industry’s business practices in preserving image and reputation during times of hardship, there is a problem when it comes to the enablement of dictatorial regimes. Civil war and social unrest prevention does not equate to the improvement of happiness for the majority since these were caused primarily by the continued suffering of the population. According to the Public Relations Society of America (2022), “we are faithful to those we represent while honoring our obligation to serve the public interest” (para. 11). Therefore, it is evident that B-M abandoned the public interest through the support of the government violating human rights in Argentina. The comparative impact of the tax revenues gained through the deal cannot be equated to the losses of life and human rights violations.
Conclusion
In conclusion, neither Kantian nor utilitarian theories of ethics can justify B-M activities in Argentine during the 1970s and 1980s. In accordance with deontology, B-M, as a business, is responsible and carries a duty to prioritize the human rights of people over its own profit. Managing and improving the reputation of the Argentinian regime enabled the state to survive for longer due to enhanced international image. The civil war and social unrest prevention did not equate to the improvement of happiness for the majority because of continued pain for the masses.
References
Byars, S. M., & Stanberry, K. (2018). Business ethics. OpenStax.
Public Relations Society of America. (2022). PRSA Code of Ethics. Web.
Rodríguez-Salcedo, N., & Gómez-Baceiredo, B. (2017). A herstory of public relations: Teresa Dorn, from Scott Cutlip to Burson-Marsteller Europe (1974–1995). Journal of Public Relations Research, 29(1), 16-37. Web.
Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice, what’s the right thing to do? Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Source Watch. (2019). Burson-Marsteller. Web.