Public Relations Review, 21(1):3544 Copyright 0 1995 by JAI Press Inc.

ISSN: 0363-8111 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

An Approach to
Ethics in the
Larry R. Judd Information Age
ABSTRACT: Public relations practitioners often counsel
organizations on issues related to ethics and social responsibility.
And, organizations desire credibility to influence public policy.
Technology has contributed to changing values which make it
difficult to determine which behaviors will be viewed as credible.
Given our changing values and the possible conflicts between
professional ethics and organizational values, practitioners need
precepts which fit the times. As an approach to ethics for the
information age, three precepts are proposed: (1) accept
responsibility when appropriate, (2) anticipate negative effects,
and (3) attempt justice through John Rawls principles of justice.
Larry R. Judd is a professor in the School of Communication,
University of House.

Besides directing communications, many public relations

professionals serve as advisors on issues relating to ethics and social responsibil-
ity. Determining acceptable courses of action for organizations has become
complicated as traditional value systems often appear out of harmony with
modern society. 2 Personal and professional values may serve as guides to under-
standing public responsibility. But those who counsel organizations seem to hit a
point where concern for organization and other concerns conflict. Does the
client (or organization) have priority over the public or over personal values or
over professional ethics?3
Today, organizations wish to influence social and economic policy by partici-

Spring 1995 35
 Public Relations Review

pating in the public dialogue. To be credible and effective, organizations and

those who speak for them need to be viewed as ethical and responsible to
society.4 Yet, perceptions of what is ethical and what is responsible are changing.
Technology influences change in our society.
The idea is not that change and innovation are bad. Innovation has been a
major force in the economic success of western nations. But, technology spills
over into our social and moral life. While we might view it as amoral, a means to
an end, technological innovation unsettles old values and creates new views of
the world. Practitioners face a challenge. They need to determine appropriate
balance of achieving company goals, meeting personal and professional standards
and advocating what society will view as just, as ethical and responsible behavior.
This article describes changes influenced by technology and proposes precepts
to aid establishing credibility for organizations and their communicators.

CHANGING VALUES

An approach to ethics for the information era begins by

considering changes in the perception of the real and the good as the
western world moved through romanticism and industrialism to the present.
The passionate individual was the model in the romantic age. Emotion and
relationship to God were prominent. God revealed or tradition dictated what was
real and what was right. Ethical interactions were between individuals, bound in
time and space.
In the industrial era, the machine replaced man as the model and science built
on positivism became prominent. Truth became objectively observable, and
rationalism became a virtue. The new way of looking at the world facilitated
understanding and harnessing nature. Research could unveil natures secrets and
private enterprise could develop wealth. Granted the right to compete in free
enterprise, corporations were to provide profits, goods or services and employ-
ment The influence of God diminished and issues of right or wrong became
subject to multiple interpretations. With improving communication technolo-
gies, interactions were less bound by time and space.
Today, the transition to an information society brings more change in our
perceptions of the world. The barriers of space and time are breached. A
lifetimes worth of information about an individual may be stored in computers
or transmitted with alarming speed to multiple receivers. With the rest of the
world, international leaders may watch on live television the air attack on a
nations capital. Interactions may be across continents and have tremendous
impact across generations. Some international businesses have more income and
power than do some nations. We might easily confuse physical reality with the
reality of television or of hyperspace. Information competes with capital as a
source of power. Science and technology exert a powerful force on our view of
the world and while claimed to be value free, technology cannot be value free and
still foster a positive evaluation of technology and efxciency.

36 Vol. 21, No. 1

 An Approach to Ethics in the Informative Age

Our belief about what is right and what is real seems a residue of the past mixed
with changes of the present. Individuals who may look to God and tradition live
in a world of science and free enterprise. Reality may be the bottom line or
defined by science and separated from traditional values and the individual.
Actions and interactions vital to the individual may be among international
corporations, instantaneous and distant. There is no guide that accommodates
contemporary pressures. Alone, technology and efficiency will not lead to the
behaviors that will gain credibility in the contemporary public forum.

CONTEMPORARY CONDITIONS

Many issues impact the image and expectations of organi-

zations in the information era. Business credibility is very low, but public
expectations of organizations are high. Some see organizations as a threat. And,
there are differing interpretations of the locus of responsibility.

Low Credibility
Business and technology contributed to an improved stan-
dard of living during the last forty years. But, there was a dramatic drop of the
publics confidence in their major institutions and in their leaders starting in the
late 1960~.~ These low evaluations of moral consciousness and social responsi-
bility have continued through the 1980s and into the 1990~.~ Despite these low
ratings, people believed more could be done with less and more was expected of
corporations.

High Expectations
During the 1970s and 1980s we gained in productive
ability. People wanted Corporations to become more active in the resolution of
social problems. People hoped that corporations would do more than provide
profits, goods or services and employment. Individuals developed higher expec-
tations of personal entitlements. There was an attempt to protect and help those
on the bottom of the economic ladder. Many felt that each citizen was entitled to
adequate housing, an improving standard of living, adequate retirement income
and quality medical and dental care .7 Business was expected to participate in
securing entitlements and in solving social problems.* Yet, some viewed corpora-
tions and their reliance on technology as part of the problem.

Threat
Technological development generated power over nature
and over people. Effective innovation enhanced the power of business organiza-
tions on an international scale.9 How should the power of technology be applied?
What values should influence change? Some feared that innovation guided by
market forces would be detrimental to society and the environment.O

Spring 1995 37
 Public Relations Review

Can the conscience of a modern organization balance efficiency and individual

worth? Is it possible that technology becomes its own governing force? Could
technology define truth? Could technology displace and then create the values of
society? Jacques Ellul suggests that technique itself becomes a virtue. He visual-
izes a fusion of science and its applications as technique. He asserts that Man
is caught like a fly in a bottle. His attempts at culture, freedom, and creative
endeavor have become mere entries in techniques filing cabinet. In his view
the new technical morality is behavioral and extrinsic to man. This rules out the
rubric of traditional morality and offers instead the value of efficiency.
Ellul is not alone in concern about technological determinism.13 Worker fears
of rationalization and centralization14 or of unemployment and job deskillingj
are practical expressions of the concern that efficiency has preempted the value of
the individual.

Responsibility

Who is responsible for the latent effects of innovation?

With anticipated results, the affects of new technologies often include unantici-
pated negative results. Rogers contends that there is a need to see beyond the
direct and desirable effects and to realize that unanticipated results often fol-
10w.l~ These results may include negative changes in the nature of work or in the
social status of employees. They may threaten all society.
Jonas argues that modern technology creates the need for a review of ethical
responsibility. He points out that the increased scope of our deeds raises issues that
go beyond ethics of the past-those concerned the dealings of person with person
in restricted space and time parameters. He suggests that technology, influenced
by the market and politics, has achieved the state where it may overtax nature. The
magnitude of self-propelled cumulative effects may move us beyond the point of
no return. Technology has such power that unanticipated side effects on the
ecology of the planet may threaten human existence. He urges that there is a need
to save the survival and humanity of man from the excesses of his power.17
Postman voices concern for loss of control to what he calls Technopoly. He
focuses on the importance of information and how the relationship of information
and human goals has been stretched. Concerned that we suffer from information
glut and information without meaning, he states that We are a culture consuming
itself with information, and many of us do not even wonder how to control the
process.ls He points out that As the power of traditional social institutions to
organize perceptions and judgment declines, bureaucracies, expertise, and techni-
cal machinery become the principal means by which Technopoly hopes to control
information and thereby provide itself with intelligibility and order.19 A simple
example of how the technology determines our view of reality is the example of
color vision. Scientists were baffled in trying to explain why peoples color vision
varied by the seasons. Recently, this barrier to explaining human physiology was
overcome when it was discovered that the instrument used since 1948 to indicate
color vision was affected by room temperature.20

38 Vol. 21, No. 1

 An Approach to Ethics in the Informative A,ye

On another dimension Gumpert and Cathcart describe how the mediums of

communication influence our views of and presentation of reality. The new
mediums provide shared ways of expressing meaning and come with unique
patterns of images and language structure. They argue that a medium serves as an
extension of human capacities and determines the kind of message to be deliv-
ered.21 We do not create the same message for the pen as for the telegraph or
telephone or television. In addition, the messages created for the medium
influence our interpretation of reality.
Vanderburg describes our increasingly modern societies . . . By the fact that
almost every aspect of these societies is organized and reorganized on the basis of
a variety of techniques that together constitute a knowledge base that is drawn on
to ensure that everything is done effectively as possible.22 He argues that the
reason the industrial nations generated this mass of information was that as
techniques began to replace tradition as the basis for a sphere of activity, more
information was generated about the sphere by the technical operations, and new
techniques were necessary to deal with the mass of information. Computers have
accelerated these patterns and we move into the information economy with a
proliferation of techniques that are not culturally neutral. Applied without refer-
ence to social contexts, technical operations are evaluated internally by efficiency
or cost-effectiveness. More technical operations resolve any tensions with the
social matrix. We seem to have given technique an ultimate value in our society.
Mitcham points out that the growth of technology has led to a change in one
type of legal responsibility. Torts, the branch of civil law that allows suit for
damages, now extends beyond intentional acts or negligence to include strict
liability-a sort of no-fault liability. There has been a universal tendency . . . To
widen strict liability beyond the scope of industrial accidents to product liability,
and, most recently, to environmental degradation.23 Technological societies
rely less on intent or negligence and view the producer responsible for effects
which may or may not have been foreseen.
In summary, contemporary organizations that wish to influence public policy
appear to have low credibility and are expected to do more for society. They operate
in an apparently amoral system driven by efficiency and market forces, but are held
responsible by society. Technological advances have influenced values and the way
we view the world. Some fear that organizations have gained power through
technology without a&&g responsibility. Those who would advise organizations
about ethical and social issues need precepts appropriate to the times.

PRECEPTS

An approach to ethics in the information age should be

sensitive to the concerns about technological determinism, suited to function in
a democratic free enterprise society, and provide a value framewrork to reconcile
conflicting claims. I argue that to achieve credibility, contemporary organiza-
tions should accept responsibility, anticipate negative effects, and attempt justice.

Spring 1995 39
 Public Relations Review

Accept Responsibility

When appropriate, businesses should accept responsibility

before they are forced to do so by society. Corporations are granted status as
special citizens in the social system. They have certain rights and obligations.
Their social obligations now extend beyond compliance with the law and provid-
ing profits, jobs, and services or goods. Society expects a just use of power and
support of social policy. Yet, corporations cannot be responsible for everything.
What is optional and what is required? Jonas suggests that the move from being
willing to being obligated is mediated by power, knowledge and freedom.24
Responsibility exists with the freedom to make a choice, awareness of alterna-
tives, and the power to choose. People expect corporate executives to discover
the alternatives and to be accountable in situations of power and choice. There
are some conditions where business does not exercise choice and government or
another agency plays a role. Expectations of adequate housing or of health care
for all are entitlements. The term entitlement suggests satisfaction for all, a
passive right. Not only are the goods or services available to all, all should have
them. Government protects passive rights.
On the other hand, the private enterprise system works by satisfying active
rights where equity is determined by equal availability. All are given equal
opportunity, but there is no guarantee of equal satisfaction. Everyone has the
option to purchase, but those who choose not to or do not pay are excluded from
the good or service. Where corporations exercise choice and power, they should
be responsible, anticipate negative effects and attempt justice.

Anticipate Negative Effects

As DeGregori points out, the gains from technological

innovation are greater than the losses. 25 But, we have been conservative in esti-
mating negative effects.
In the past it was a given that technological change was good. We were willing
to assume the best and proceed unless we could prove undesirable effects. Now,
there is the knowledge and power to impact others across generations and
continents. With this power comes a responsibility to conserve and preserve. We
have an obligation to the present. But, we cannot sacrifice the future through
ignorance. We must seek accurate estimation of the negative effects of present
actions.
To regain mastery of our fate, Vanderburg suggests an ethics of freedom and
non-power. We need non-technical values to break the circle of technical solu-
tions. An ethics of non-power means choosing not to do something when the
consequences would be widespread and uncertain, or accepting limits in indi-
vidual and collective action when such action endangers coexistence and the
ability of others to individually or collectively live their own lives.26
Thus, we need to tilt toward the ethics of non-power and then guide our
choice by attempting justice.

40 Vol. 21. No. 1

 An Approach to Ethics in the Informative Age

Attempt Justice
A major problem in attempting to reconcile conflicting
claims is that we lack a general method of determining what is perceived as just in
a society that has selectively rejected values from earlier eras. Is there a guide to
just choices in the information age?
According to Bawls, justice is fairness. He proposes a social contract that
provides a moral basis for a democratic society in a free enterprise system.27 To
distribute the benefits and burdens of social cooperation, he proposes what he
calls the principles of social justice. He suggests a hypothetical situation in which
the principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance. Behind the veil no
one knows their status, position, family, abilities etc.
Thus, a set of principles may be decided that will favor no particular position or
condition. He argues that people in this initial situation would choose principles
such that the first would provide equality in assigning basic rights and duties. The
second principle would hold that inequalities in position or wealth are just only if
they provide compensating benefits for everyone, especially the least advantaged.
In addition, each generation is expected to pass on to the next a fair equivalent in
real capital including knowledge and culture. Called the just savings principle,
each generation is to carry their share of the burden to preserve society.
In the real world, there is a degree of scarcity and people do have advantages of
birth and ability. Bawls tilts in the direction of providing a social minimum for all.
And, transfers of essential public goods would be arranged to provide equality of
opportunity.
Given the assumptions above, the first principle of justice for institutions is that
Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal
basic liberties compatible with a similar system of equal basic liberties for a11.28
The second principle is that Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged
so that they are both: (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged,
consistent with the just savings principle, and (b) attached to offices and posi-
tions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.29 The
principles are ranked and liberty can only be restricted for the sake of liberty and
may not be sacrificed for the social or economic gain of others.
Bawls principles till out the three precepts I have suggested: (1) accept
responsibility when appropriate, (2) anticipate negative effects with a tilt toward
the ethics of non-power, and (3) attempt justice through fairness. Together, they
provide an approach to resolving conflicting claims in contemporary society.

APPLICATION

One example of application of this approach is to show

how it would work if applied in the third phase of Bivins systems model for
ethical decision making. 3o He suggests that his adaptation of systems theory
provides a useful tool for aiding a public relations practitioner in an ordering of

Spring 1995 41
 Public RelationsReview

stakeholder claims and balancing obligations. Bivins talks about an open systems
model that identifies stakeholders, analyses their relationship to the organization
and applies ethical principles.
The process begins when an issue or problem is detected and ethical consider-
ations are perceived to impact resolution. He suggests an ethical analysis that
compares the claims and obligations of stakeholders. Input is the issue, stake-
holder analysis and prioritization. Throughput involves the stages of situation
definition, ethical analysis, decision, and evaluation. In our example the practitio-
ner would define the situation and order the claims of the stakeholders. Then the
ethical analysis stage would involve the proposed three precepts of accepting
responsibility if appropriate, anticipating negative effects, and attempting justice.
And, last would come Bivins stages of decision and evaluation of the decision.

CONCLUSIONS

This article proposes the three precepts not as the solution

of the ethics problem, but as a beginning, as an outline to be refined by further
exploration and discussion. The precepts have yet to be tested in the field. But,
there is a rationale to expect that practitioners who advocate and organizations
who practice these three precepts will be viewed as credible and allowed a fair
hearing in the debate of public policy.
In summary, the precepts appear compatible with contemporary society and
may transcend problems of role and perspective. Political rights are protected
first, then there is a basis for resolving economic issues. Organizations have
guides to discern when to accept responsibility for acts where they may be held
responsible by the public. Attention is focused on unanticipated effects. The
disadvantaged are protected. And, in a system compatible with free enterprise,
justice is approached through fairness.

NOTES

1. Otto Lerbinger, How far Toward the Social Audit?, Public Relations Revielv 1
(1975), pp. 38-52.
2. eg., Milton F. Capps Gaining Trust Amid Chaos, Public Relations Journal 48
(1992), p. 19; John L. Gregory, Balance Change and Public Interest, Public
Relations Journal 48 (1992), p. 25.
3. eg., Daniel J. Edelman, Ethical Behavior is Key to Fields Future, Public Relations
Journal 48 (1992)~~. 3 l-32; Susan L. Fry, Ethical Values Reflect Responsibility to
Client, Organization and Self, Public Relations Journal 48 (1992), p. 10; Todd
Hunt and Andrew Tripok, Universal Ethics Code: An Idea Whose Time Has
Come, Public Relations Revierv 19 (1993), pp. l-l 1; Doug A. Newsom, Shirley A.
Ramsey, and Bob J. Carrell, Chameleon Chasing II: A Replication, Public Relations
Revielv 19 (1993), pp. 33-47; Cornelius B. Pratt, PRSA Members Perceptions of
Public Relations Ethics, Public Relations Revielv 17 (1991), pp. 145-159; Donald

42 Vol. 21, No. 1

 An Approach to Ethics in the Informative Age

K. Wright, Enforcement Dilemma: Voluntary Nature of Public Relations Codes,

Public Relations Review 19 (1993), pp. 13-20.
4. eg., Dirk, C. Gibson, The Communication Continuum: A Theory of Public
Relations, Public Relations Review 17 (1991), pp. 175-183; Larry R. Judd,
Credibility, Public Relations and Social Responsibility, Public Relations Review 5
(1989), pp. 3440.
5. Seymour Martin Lipset, and William Schneider, Hows Business? What the Public
Thinks, Public Opinion 1 (1978), pp. 4147.
6. eg., Seymour Martin Lipset, Feeling Better: Measuring the Nations Confidence,
Public Opinion 8 (1985), pp. 56-58; Judy A. Gordon and Adam Shell, Forecast
1992, Journal of Public Relations 48 (1992), p. 18.
7. Peg Dardene, Dont Rain on My Parade, Journal of Public Relations 36 (1980), p.
45.
8. eg., Otto Lerbinger, op. cit., p. 38; Carlton E. Spitzer, Should Government Audit
Corporate Social Responsibility. > Public Relations Review 7 (198 l), pp. 25-28.
9. Charles Boyle, The Control of Science and Technology, in Charles Boyle, Peter
Wheale, and Brian Sturgess (eds), People, Science and Technology, (Totowa, New
Jersey: Barnes & Noble Books, 1984), pp. 229-252.
10. Hans Jonas, The Imperative of Responsibility (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1984), p. x.
11. Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1970), p. 418.
12. Jacques Ellul, The Power of Technique and the Ethics of Non-Power, in Kathleen
Woodward (ed.), Mary Lydon (trans.), Be Myths of Information: Technology and
Postindustrial Culture (Madison, WI: Coda Press, 1980), pp. 242-247.
13. Wilhelm Steinmuller Information Technologies and Social Power, in Ulrich
Briefs, John Kjaer, and Jean-Louis Rigal (eds.), Computerization and Work (Berlin:
Springer-Verlag, 1985), pp. 17-33.
14. Martin Baethge and Herbert Oberbeck, The Future of the White-Collar worker,
in Huib Ernste, and Carlo Jaeger (eds.), Information Society and Spatial Structure
(London: Belhaven Press, 1989), pp. 117-127.
15. eg., Niels Bjorn-Anderson and Leif Bloch Rasmussen, Sociological Implications of
Computer Systems, in H. T. Smith, and T. R. G. Green (eds.), Human Interaction
with Computers (New York: Academic Press, 1980), pp. 97-123; Richard M. Cyert
and David C. Mowery, Technology and Employment (Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press, 1987), pp. 4, 61,130.
16. Everett M. Rogers, Communication Technology (New York: Free Press, 1986), p.
162.
17. Hans Jonas, op. cit., p. x.
18 Neil Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology (New York: Alfred
A. Knopf, 1992), p. 70.
19. Ibid, p. 9 1.
20. Associated Press, Flaw Found in Test for Color Vision, l%e Houston Post (June 13,
1993), p. A30.
21. Gary Gumpert and Robert Cathcart, A Theory of Mediation, in Brent D. Ruben,
and Leah A. Lievrouw (eds.), Mediation, Information, and Communication (New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1990), pp. 21-36.
22. Willem H. Vanderburg, Technique and Responsibility: Think Globally, Act Locally,
According to Jacques Ellul, in Paul T. Durbin (ed.), Technology and Responsibility,
(Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing, 1987), pp. 115-132.

Spring 1995 43
 Public Relations Review

23. Carl Mitcham, Responsibility and Technology: The Expanding Relationship, in

Paul T. Durbin (ed.), Technologyand Responsibi&y(Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing,
1987), p. 7.
24. Hans Jonas, op. cit., p. 129.
25. Thomas R DeGregori, A Theory of Technology (Ames: The Iowa State University
Press, 1985), p. 39.
26. Willem H. Vanderburg, op. cit., p. 128.
27. John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA.: Belnap Press, 1971). Rawls
theory of justice was at first widely acclaimed and has since suffered the ebb and flow
of academic popularity. A critical review of his ideas may be found in Norman
Daniels (ed.), Reading Rawls: Critical Studies on Rawls A theory of Justice (New
York: Basic Books, 1975). One of the better defenses of the theory of justice is in
Thomas W. Pogge, Realizing Rawls (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989).
28. John Rawls, op. cit., p. 302.
29. Ibid.
30. Thomas H. Bivins, A Systems Model for Ethical Decision Making in Public
Relations, Public Relations Review 18.4( 1993), pp. 365-383.

44 Vol. 21, No. 1