By Ahmed Gaara, Consultant, PhD Candidate at Rotterdam School of Management

Have you once paused to reflect on the ethical implications of names – mainly as they carry various expectations? Communications experts are often referred to as “professional,” irrespective of whether they come from public, international, and media relations or corporate, marketing, or crisis communications. Despite the diversity of these sub-domains, what the term “professional” suggests remains uniform. Gaara, Kaptein, and Berens (2024) indicate that it denotes field-specific expertise, competence, knowledge, and skills. Being a “professional” also implies maintaining agency, autonomy, and decisional independence. My intellectual curiosity, however, does not stop at the inherent expectations of that term. Instead, it transcends to the plethora of names (words or values, if you like) that organisations expect communication professionals to represent. 

As a communication ethics scholar, I often find myself contemplating the ethical dilemmas (EDs) confronting communication professionals. Attending the EACD Summit (2024) was a lucrative opportunity to get closer to such EDs. During the summit, I was taken aback by the abundance of words that attendees mentioned they had heard enough of (see side picture). My surprise was not only limited to the sheer number of words, but also the EDs that could arise within and across them. 

Take, for instance, the value of “sustainability” which appeared to be the second most heard-of word. While sustainability is generally viewed positively, it could be a source of EDs. Put simply, the mere expectation of communication professionals to promote environmental sustainability, which requires resource-preservation practices, may conflict with fostering financial growth and maintaining economic sustainability, which often require resource-intensive practices. This situation is usually distressing because prioritising one often requires minimising the other. 

Likewise, “inclusivity” was also mentioned at the summit, which could, in and of itself, lead communication professionals into an ED, too. Although promoting inclusivity is also considered a positive endeavour, it may, in fact, result in creating identity categories: for instance, around race or gender, possibly prompting communication professionals to view publics, internal, or external stakeholders collectively rather than individually, hence downplaying individual issues, merits, contributions, or achievements. 

I also reflected on whether the names mentioned on stage would remain relatively stable or evolve into something more intricate. And then I thought the latter probably has a higher likelihood than the former. Although such complexity may draw a bleak picture, I could not dismiss the possibility of such names getting entangled. That seems to happen more often because ED is a highly dynamic phenomenon. To illustrate, consider, for instance, how two words, “transparency” and “polarisation,” also mentioned at the Summit, could simultaneously interact. More specifically, the constant public pressure to ensure transparency could disrupt the social fabric and strain inclusivity efforts, eventually amplifying societal polarisation. 

Should communication professionals be concerned? Probably yes – because EDs often occur subliminally. They are hard to recognise instantly. They usually remain implicit until threat signs start emerging. However, the implications, by then, may ripple far beyond individual credibility. They may put the corporate reputation on the line, including its operating legitimacy. Perhaps reflecting on the negative connotations historically associated with public relations and how the field has become notorious for humiliating stereotypes such as spin-doctoring, among others, could better illustrate this point. It all started with unaddressed EDs affecting the behaviour of some public relations professionals, eventually leading to negative field-level perceptions. Perhaps taking the analogy of public relations to the broader communications field may help reflect more on the inherent expectations (and implications) of the names, words, or values that communication professionals are constantly asked to represent. 

I hope you will consider this blog an invitation to think of names not merely as labels but as a source of ethics (and EDs). On that note, I hope to leave you with some food for thought. Please feel free to e-mail me anytime.