From Compliance to Integrity: How Public Relations Modifies Ethics and Legal Frameworks across Public, Private and Oil Sectors: The Moderating Role of Legal Strength and Mediating Role of Crisis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.68050/JAMS.2026.593Keywords:
Public Relations, Ethics, Organisational Conscience, Legal Framework, Oil Companies, EITI, CSRD, Crisis, Dominant , Coalition, Reasonable Steps Defence.Abstract
The study examined and investigated how public relations (PR) modifies organisational ethics and its legal framework, comparing public, private and oil companies internationally, testing legal framework strength as moderator and crisis experience as mediator. Drawing on Bowen's organisational conscience theory, systems, stakeholder and dialogical theories, The study surveyed six hundred PR, ethics and CSR professionals with two hundred respondents per sector , across USA, UK, Germany, France, Netherlands and Norway, and interviewed fourty five professionals. Findings show PR significantly modifies ethics [β=0.68, p<0.001, R²=0.50] and legal framework [β=0.62, p.0.001, R²=0.44]. ANOVA shows sector differences oil [M=4.05] private sector [3.71] public sector [3.52] oil sector [F=28.43, p.0.001]. Legal framework strength moderates PR-ethics relationship [β=0.19, LLCI 0.09 ULCI 0.29], with stronger effect under strong enforcement [β=0.71 vs 0.38]. Crisis experience mediates via access to dominant coalition [indirect=0.21, Boot LLCI 0.15 ULCI 0.28]. Contributions include first international quantitative validation of conscience theory and three-sector comparison, with implications for CSRD, EITI, FCPA, Equality Act s109 reasonable steps defence and Bribery Act s7 adequate procedures.
References
1. Bowen, S. A. (2008). A state of neglect: Public relations as corporate conscience or ethics counsel. Journal of Public Relations Research, 20, 271-296.
2. Bowen, S. A. (2009). Crisis as window for PR ethics counsel access to dominant coalition. Public Relations Review.
3. Fitzpatrick, K. R. (1996). The role of public relations in the institutionalization of ethics. Public Relations Review, 22.
4. Freeman, R. E., & Gilbert, D. R. (1988). Corporate strategy and the search for ethics. Prentice-Hall.
5. Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations.
6. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Beacon Press.
7. Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships. Institute for PR.
8. Idid, S. A., & Arandas, M. F. (2016). Professional values and code of ethics. International Journal of Communication.
9. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28.
10. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.
11. Liu, B. F., & Horsley, J. S. (2007). The government communication decision wheel. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35.
12. OECD. (2020). Public Integrity Handbook. OECD Publishing.
13. Zyglidopoulos, S., & Fleming, P. (2008). Corporate accountability in oil companies. Organization Studies, 29.
14. Meritor Savings Bank v Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986).
15. Harris v Forklift Systems, 510 U.S. 17 (1993).
16. Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum, 569 U.S. 108 (2013).
17. Bodo Community v Shell, UKSC 3 (2021).
18. Equality Act 2010. UK.
19. Bribery Act 2010. UK.
20. EITI Standard 2019.
21. EU Directive 2019/1937 Whistleblower Directive.
22. EU Directive 2022/2464 CSRD.
23. UNGPs 2011.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Auhor(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles published in the Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Studies (JAMS) are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), unless otherwise stated. Authors retain copyright of their work and grant JAMS the right of first publication.
