When should a communications or PR agency say no? In an industry built on shaping narratives, agencies frequently face the dilemma of working with clients whose activities or politics may be ethically controversial. Take the recent backlash against Stagwell as an example. The holding group faced criticism when leaked documents found that it was involved in research and tested campaign messages designed to improve perceptions of Israel internationally while it continues its war against Palestine. Don’t miss: Backlash over Stagwell’s Israel work puts PR ethics in the spotlight A less political example, but equally controversial incident, closer to home would be when extra-marital affairs dating app Ashley Madison wanted to launch in Singapore, sparking backlash from citizens. The dating website had sought for a PR agency in Singapore, however, the MDA banned the website due to its “flagrant disregard of Singapore’s family values and public morality.” The cases raise a recurring question for communications agencies: where should they draw the line? Industry leaders MARKETING-INTERACTIVE spoke to emphasise different approaches to this moral calculus. Ethics are situational Pei Lin Cho, managing director of APRW, believes that ethics is ultimately situational and there’s no clear answer, except for the one mandated by the law. “Anything that requires us to break the law is definitely a no-no,” said Cho. But beyond legality, she advises that agencies should judge the actual brief and the work itself, rather than the client’s industry or reputation. For instance, working with a company in the casino industry could raise eyebrows. But the ethics dilemma comes in when the same company is the running a charity campaign. “The first judgment call you need to make is whether you agree with a particular stance,” she said. Citing another example, she asks, what if a firm asks the agency to highlight only the CSR work they’re doing, without mentioning anything negative they’ve been associated with. Should the agency have to walk away from highlighting real work such as helping the poor, providing free education to immigrants when that’s the truth? Cho also emphasises the importance of individual choice, allowing employees to opt out of projects that clash with personal or religious beliefs. In her view, agencies must find a balance between the values of the team and the practicalities of the work, recognising that no single person’s perspective can define ethical boundaries alone. In the context of Singapore, she says using gambling as an example, in some cultures and religions, the act of gambling is frowned upon, but in others, it’s an activity for bonding. “Is there a stand the agency must take and therefore, does it mean that the people who work in casinos are people with no ethics? Is gambling necessarily bad? Is smoking any worse than drinking alcohol?” said Cho, highlighting the nuances of every situation. At the end of the day, Cho falls back on the guidelines of the laws when it comes to the grey areas such as tobacco marketing, alcohol marketing or gambling marketing where there are specific guidelines in legislation. She concludes: To summarise: it really depends on the brief. I don’t judge based on the client alone. I consider the work I’m being asked to do and whether it aligns with my values. Lars Voedisch, founder and CEO of PRecious Communications, added that there is never an absolute line. “It’s the longevity of how your decisions are paying back. Are you looking at it short term or long term? It all comes down to, are you willing to sacrifice money for your values. That’s where it all comes down to, at the end of the day.” Shedding light to the example of when Ashley Madison was launching in Asia, he shared that when the brief landed on the agency’s desk, he had taken a poll across the office on employee sentiments on working on the account. Majority felt uncomfortable leading to the agency walking away from the brief. “Employee sentiments matter,” he said. Doing the ‘right thing’ Meanwhile, Asiya Bakht, founder of Beets Public Relations stressed a longer-term moral lens, arguing that agencies must weigh reputation and historical accountability. She notes that agencies often operate pragmatically, balancing survival with ideology. Using the example of leaders such as Mark Penn, chair and CEO of Stagwell, she says these leaders align their personal values with agency strategy, shaping how ethically fraught campaigns are pursued. “He’s well-known as a right-wing sympathiser and pro-Trump strategist. From his perspective, he may not see working with Israel as a wrong. He’s also part of the Jewish-American community, so he may view his work as aligned with his values,” she said. She noted that in certain cases, many agencies prefer to stay neutral and avoid divisive politics. Strategically, that can make sense, but it can also backfire. “Personally, I believe agencies have an ethical responsibility to be transparent. Many successful agencies have prospered because they made strong, value-based decisions and chose the right side of history,” she said, adding that: It’s simple: you always know what is right and what is wrong. And normally, the right thing is the universal ‘right thing’. Voedisch also notes that decisions about clients aren’t just about the brand as it affects hire, the type of talent attracted, and relationships with other clients. “If you work with one client, another may refuse to work with you. Who you do business with reflects not just on your brand, but also on your staff, partners, and entire ecosystem. That has a much bigger impact today than it did in the heydays of Bell Pottinger,” he said. The role of industry bodies This divergence reflects the broader question of how much responsibility falls on industry bodies. Most, such as the PRCA or the 4As, act more as convenors than enforcers. For some, this risks allowing agencies to hide behind neutrality, even when the stakes are clear. “Industry bodies have code of conducts for their members and at best, they can expel a member who flouts these rules.
