As the head of the public relations department of the state’s largest bank, I occasionally encounter ethical dilemmas that affect the stakeholders and shareholders of the bank. My decision making process however, has never involved the personal relationship that I have with my husband, the owner of Large Productions. His company has been chosen by the bank’s public relations agency to supply them with advertising products for a bank program that I am responsible for producing. This conflict of interest can be weighed using a utilitarian or deontological approach or possibly a combination of the two.
The utilitarian approach emphasizes the consequences of my actions and how they affect others. “In this sense, utilitarianism has been called a consequentialist approach to ethics and social policy: we should act in ways that produce better consequences than the alternatives we are considering” (p. 312). The target outcome of the utilitarian approach is to maximize good for the most people. As the public relations head, I would consider this approach. In doing so, I would first look at the interests of all the stakeholders involved and inform the bank’s public relations team as well as the public relations agency, Large Promotions and my husband, who I am sure would have been told informally. This allows these stakeholders to weigh the options and come up with a decision that promotes the greatest good.
Since the public relations agency was probably unaware of the potentially unethical business relationship between me and Large Promotions, it is only fair to inform them, as the use of Large Promotions was their idea, not mine. If the group decided that moving forward was perfectly appropriate, I would suggest that the second in command at the bank’s public relations firm deal more heavily with the production of the advertising specialty promotions done by Large Promotions as a vendor of the public relations agency.
Considering this conflict of interest from the deontological perspective prompts me to think beyond how the end justifies the means. This approach doesn’t focus on consequences as an ends to a means, but on principles and whether they are right or wrong. Is it principled for me to be the head of the bank’s public relations department and hire, through another party, my husband’s business? Probably not. But to decide on this, I would consult the human resources director, the legal department and the code of conduct/ethics that has already been outlined by the bank, the public relations agency and Large Promotions.
This principle-based approach would cause me to ask that the public relations agency to look for another production company to work with. Although the agency has a relationship with Large Promotions and the bank, the principled decision would eliminate Large Promotions as the vendor because of the personal relationship I have with the owner. Regardless of the ends or the potential for good consequences, the deontological approach focuses on what is right in essence and not on results. The deontological approach has the potential to produce the greatest good for the greatest number by preventing unethical matters from turning into a crisis that can affect the profits and reputation of the company.
my home row 