Shoddy, Unsubstantiated Allegations of "Reputation Laundering"
London, according to The Guardian, has become the capital of "reputation laundering." That's a catchy new term, one I suspect we are going to hear more of, even though there's no attempt in this article to define precisely what it means.
In fact, the piece is a pretty shoddy piece of work. The author claims that "the capital's public relations firms are earning millions of pounds a year promoting foreign regimes with some of the world's worst human rights records," including Saudi Arabia, Rwanda, Kazakhstan and Sri Lanka, but there's no evidence to support the claim that this makes London the world capital of such work--there's no attempt to compare the volume of such work in the U.K. to the amount in Washington, D.C., for example.
More significantly, of course, there's no analysis of the kind of work these firms are doing for the regimes involved. Much is made of a PRCA code of conduct that says "political consultants must advise clients where their activities may be illegal, unethical or contrary to professional practice, and to refuse to act for a client in pursuance of any such activity." The author warns that "some of the lucrative deals may breach" the code, but presents no evidence that they do.
At the risk of being tediously repetitive on this point: ethical public relations depends on the honesty and integrity of the work done, not the individual--or company, or regime--on whose behalf it is conducted.
Neil Gibbons, editor of communicate magazine, makes the case in a response to the original article, in which he points out that "good reputation management can lead to change. On Monday, Rwanda is holding presidential elections for the first time in 16 years: a modernizing step that has been propelled by the return of foreign interests."
Sounds like they got some good PR advice.
