Does money always win? - Transparency register also opens up the ethics of business in communications agencies
In recent years, the influence of media agencies has regularly risen in the media. Real influence is difficult to measure, but the transparency register to be introduced next year, known as the lobbyist register, is a step towards transparency in the use of power, and is likely to answer many questions, including those relating to business ethics. Fundamentally, the ethics of a business, such as a communications agency, reflect the company's view of right and wrong. Once the Transparency Register is in place, we will see which actors buy influencer communications services - and to whom communications agencies sell them.
In autumn 2022, I completed a course on media law and ethics at my former school. Matti Ylönen, Mona Mannevuo and Niina Kari had just published a book on the power of communication agencies in society, Power of Communication Agencies - New Players in Politics , and a transparency register to improve the transparency of lobbying was in preparation. At the time, I wrote an essay on the business ethics of communications agencies as coursework, and I returned to the subject now that the transparency register is only a few months away.
In the context of ethical considerations, it is essential to ask what influence communication agencies have on the public debate and whose voice is heard loudest. In Sitra' s publication From the Difficulties of Democracy to Future Inclusion, it is statedthat "Democracy is always a two-way street; no one gets everything they want and therefore disappointments and slowness must be tolerated for the whole to work." Communication agencies selling impact communication services have struck gold in this respect, offering through their networks and expertise a faster grasp of processes and a deeper understanding of the laws of politics in a world where time is money. For many organisations, buying such services is understandably attractive - who wouldn't want the power to advance their own goals and business conditions?
What are the criteria for assessing communication and business ethics?
Before we can begin to assess the business ethics of communications agencies, we need to consider what communications ethics actually are. ProCom, the Association of Communication Professionals, has defined a set of ethical guidelines to guide the work of communication professionals. The four main categories of these guidelines are openness and interactivity, honesty, integrity and respect. The guidelines state, among other things, that a communications professional should "openly disclose relevant personal affiliations and interests", "always act in the best interests of his or her employer or client" and "distinguish between views and opinions and assertions of fact". The Code thus takes seriously the effectiveness of communication and stresses the importance of truthfulness and trust, but at the same time reminds people to keep the interests of the employer and the client in mind. As communications agencies operate in a commercial sector, the primary role of their employees is not to produce informative and neutral content for the public, but to deliver results below the client's line. It is therefore reasonable to ask that if the client of a communications agency is operating in a sector that is generally perceived as unethical, is the communications agency not also enabling unethical activity? Examples of such clients who are generally perceived as unethical could be those in the tobacco or fur industries. The issue can also be looked at more broadly: in addition to the examples mentioned above, organisations that do not pay attention to working conditions, safety and equality, or that do not strive to make their core business more environmentally friendly could be considered as unethical.
At the same time, it can be argued that defining ethics in communication is challenging, as communicators have different moral concepts. For example, Rane Aunimo, editor-in-chief of Demokraat, the main voice of the Finnish Social Democratic Party, writes in his analysis of the services sold by communications agencies, based on a book by Ylönen, Mannevuo and Kari, that "Money matters more than the number of members of an organisation or its weight in society. So for the poor and otherwise weak, don't bother." He also points out that understanding the cause and effect of policy can be challenging, as many agencies that do influence communications hide their client relationships. In an interview with Yle, researcher Anu Kantola says that the impact of the work of communications agencies on democracy is difficult to assess because of business secrets: "We don't know whose voice is best heard in decision-making." In the same interview, interviewees at Miltton, Finland's largest communications agency, said they were in favour of a transparency register, but at the same time said they did not intend to increase their transparency before the law came into force because it would not be good for business. The question is whether the transparency register will increase companies' reflection on the ethics of customer relationships - a customer perceived as unethical in general can be a reputational liability, and reputational liabilities affect brand and business.
At the heart of ethical reflection is always the question of power and its use. Aunimo, editor-in-chief of Demokraat, also notes that "power always belongs to someone or some" and argues that the power of communications agencies "threatens to narrow and hide the use of power even further". In the above-mentioned YLE story, Jussi Kekkonen, a special adviser to the former Coalition prime minister and now working at Miltton, puts another perspective when asked whether his employer is transferring power to those who can afford to pay for services. He says there is no problem with money being a better guide to political influence: "Unfortunately, the world is such that wisdom is for sale here. In Finland, it is not even fair to get justice, because there is different legal expertise in the market. If you buy the services of a more expensive lawyer, you get a better result. Just as if you buy more expensive banking services, you get a better return, and if you buy tax services from a tax consultant, you pay less tax."
Communication ethics is a complex subject, but it cannot be denied that communication agencies exercise a certain level of power in this society. By buying the services of communication agencies, their voice is often heard in the social debate. Ethical considerations are particularly relevant in situations where, with the help of a communications agency, influence or media space is given to actors perceived as unethical.
How does the Transparency Register open up the ethical principles of communication agencies?
In an interview with Apu last year, University of Helsinki researcher Matti Ylönen pointed out that in order to maintain "a democracy based on pluralistic debate, attention should be focused on the issues on which we are able to produce and transmit information." In his view, there should be a better balance of power and attention should be paid to the capacity of different social institutions to sustain a pluralistic democracy. The authors of The Power of Communication Agencies describe their book as "a voice for democracy in the midst of change." The back cover of the book says: "The book asks who has a voice in a fragmented media landscape. Will it be the skilled communicators and the best players - and those who can afford them - who win?"
This brings us to the heart of the matter. Each communications agency decides which organisations it will take on as clients and how it will define ethical and unethical behaviour. Because of the secrecy surrounding clients who seek to influence decision-making, it has been challenging for many communications agencies to assess the implementation of their values in their business from the outside. The Transparency Register will change this - at least in part. For, as Niilo Mustonen, founder of the consultancy Blic and Klaus Nyblin, partner in the law firm HPP, point out in a guest editorial in Helsingin Sanomat, the Transparency Register will not apply to influencing decision-makers at regional and local level.
The year 2024 shows the value of the information provided by the Transparency Register
I think the transparency register is a good idea. If it works, it will demonstrate the role of lobbying in a democratic system and dispel the smokescreen around the sector. Finland has a long tradition of influencing democratic decision making - there are tens of thousands of NGOs in Finland, many of which are open about their objectives. The rise of consultancies providing influencing communication services in the 2010s has brought influencing decision making into the public eye more than before, although not only the third sector but also business has been actively engaged in dialogue with decision makers for much longer. At the same time, drawing the line between lobbying and communication can be challenging. Indeed, talking about the influence of communication agencies in the context of lobbying is often misleading and lumps all actors together. A large proportion of communication agencies do not engage in lobbying on a full-time basis or hardly at all, and therefore may not register in the Transparency Register.
The communications agency sector is still relatively new - Ylönen, Mannevuo and Kari point out in their book that the 2010s have been a period of "explosive growth" for communications agencies. Roosa Kontiokari, former editor of Grotesk, the student union magazine for communication students at the University of Helsinki, argued in a 2017 article that the professional culture of the communication industry is still taking shape, and unethical campaigns may prompt communicators to build a more coherent professional code of conduct across the sector. Kontiokari speculated in his text that customer-centric ethical communication could be a trend of the future. Kontiokari was right that the various themes of ethics have been rearing their heads in the communications sector and also in clients' business strategies. The Transparency Register will hopefully contribute to this development. Personally, I look forward to a rigorous analysis of the watchdogs of power - journalists - on the subject in the autumn of next year.
What transparency register?
The Transparency Register aims to increase transparency in decision-making. The register contains information on lobbying activities directed at Parliament and the ministries, as well as information on lobbying consultancy.
A transparency register makes it easier to monitor the functioning of the political system. The Transparency Register is kept by the National Audit Office, which monitors compliance with the reporting obligation.
The Transparency Register will be introduced in Finland in 2024.
Legal persons and sole traders engaged in lobbying or advising on lobbying activities are subject to the obligation to notify. Legal persons can be, for example, companies, associations and public authorities. Private investors who do not engage in lobbying or consultancy activities on a full-time basis are not subject to the obligation to notify. It is essential that the consultant recognises the nature of both its own activities and those of its client and how they are linked to the promotion of the client's interests in society.
By publishing up-to-date information on lobbying in the Transparency Register, lobbying can be shown to be a central and important part of the democratic system and can dispel suspicions about lobbying.
For more information, see the Ministry of Justice Transparency Register Guide.
This essay is written by our consultant Emmi Paajanen. In addition to strategic communications, she works strongly in media communications and content planning at Korner. She is an analytical and creative communications expert whose work is characterised by an interest in social developments.
