Introduction
Members of Newcastle Amnesty Saudi Arabia Sub-Group have over the past few years written various letters to UK organisations about Human Rights issues in Saudi Arabia and their implications for trade and business.
Some of these letters have not received the courtesy of a reply, as listed here: North East Economic Forum, Stephenson Mohl, Oliver Wyman (UK and worldwide), NEOM (Audit Director), Northumbria University, Newcastle United FC and Newcastle United Fans Advisory Board.
Other correspondence has given rise in effect to a ‘non-reply’ which either turns a blind eye to the issues raised or seeks to place the blame elsewhere. Such responses have been received from the North East Chamber of Commerce, PR Weekly and New Civil Engineer, although in the last case an article produced after the one that caught our attention presented a much more balanced picture of the NEOM megaproject in question.
More recently, we have gone down the route of saying that we would publish the letters together with any reply issued and a first example has been correspondence during November 2024 with the Chartered Institute of Public Relations as follows:
Our Letter to CIPR
Dear Alastair,
I’m writing to you with regard to Saudi Arabia’s poor human rights record, the Kingdom’s contradictory image of a futuristic, forward-thinking state and the UK PR industry’s involvement in this. I believe that the communication organisations that are working with or have worked on Saudi Arabian projects such as NEOM include:
● Omnicom Group (and subsidiaries)
● Publicis Group (and subsidiaries)
● WPP (and subsidiaries including Burson)
● Interpublic Group (and subsidiaries)
● S4C Capital (and subsidiaries)
● Avenir Global (and subsidiaries)
● Edelman
● Teneo
● Fleishman Hillard
● Ruder Finn
● Landor
I believe all of these agencies have offices or headquarters in the UK.
I assume amongst the long list of these organisations (and included subsidiaries) there mighbe some professionals who are members. In any case, as the world’s only chartered body for Public Relations professionals, I believe the CIPR should have an opinion on the UK PR Industries impact and contribution to human rights violations in Saudi Arabia.
NEOM in particular is a project that has attracted investment and interest from organisations and individuals in the UK. This has resulted in many UK organisations creating partnerships and offering services to develop the project.
I believe that the interest and investment from the UK has been achieved through a sustained PR drive which has helped to project a positive image of Saudi Arabia. I believe this image isn’t accurate and the real activities of Saudi Arabia have been glossed over with the help of UK PR organisations.
Specifically, I believe that this PR drive has helped to wash over serious human rights violations committed by the Kingdom. These include::
● The forcible eviction by the Saudi state of around 20,000 members of the indigenous Howeitat tribe to make way for NEOM. This has resulted in the reported extrajudicial execution of Abdul Rahim Al-Huwaiti and death sentences for three members of the tribe for their opposition to losing their homes and lands
● Reports that 21,000 foreign workers from the three countries of India, Bangladesh and Nepal have died In Saudi Arabia since the NEOM development started As an Amnesty subgroup based in Newcastle, we work to identify human rights issues in Saudi Arabia and continuously campaign to ultimately hold the Saudi Arabian authorities accountable for the violations they continue to commit against dissidents and migrants in the Kingdom. We are passionate about working to seek justice for those who have suffered human rights violations at the hands of the authorities, this includes human rights defenders who have connections to the UK. I believe that the impact of a PR organisation being used by NEOM and more broadly Vision 2030 to present an ‘exciting’ and ‘sustainable’ image makes it easier for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to conceal their sustained human rights violations. This activity undermines the work of human rights defenders like ourselves who are operating both in and outside of Saudi Arabia and demonstrates the UK PR industry’s lack of respect for human rights. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights make it clear that businesses have a responsibility to undertake human rights due diligence to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their adverse human rights impacts. This should cover adverse human rights impacts that the business may cause or contribute to through its own activities, or which may be directly linked to its operations, products or services by its business relationships. In the event of a failure to take these steps, companies would be failing in their responsibility to respect human rights and expose themselves to claims for remedy, typically financial compensation, as well as suffering reputational damage. It’s been publicised by organisations such as Human Rights Watch that the Saudi Public Investment Fund which finances NEOM has been directly involved in human rights abuses linked to Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman. The PIF is an extension of the Saudi government and provides a route for Mohammad Bin Salman to centralise economic power. Human Rights organisations have called out the decision making over how this fund is operated as offering ‘very little transparency’. The fund is positioned as an ‘ investor’ to key Saudi Arabian projects including Vision 2030 rather than a control method for Mohammad Bin Salman to exert power. UK PR organisations who are involved in supporting Vision 2030 do not appear to be vocally questioning the real operations and purpose of the PIF fund. Simultaneously, their PR activities are supporting the fund to grow on a global scale, bringing more power to a government who has a notorious track record in human rights. They are also assisting the authorities to use the vast array of global sectors that the state is investing in to join their future focussed narrative and deflect away from the real human rights violations that are currently being committed in the Kingdom. If the UK PR organisations who are involved with NEOM conducted due diligence, then this process would have identified the range of human right violations that the organisation would then become directly linked to.
With this in mind, what would your recommendations be to PR organisations who are still actively involved in NEOM and more broadly Vision 2030?
My understanding of the CIPR is that it marks the professional standard for the public relations industry and advises any professional that before carrying out any work to define the ethical situation or paradox, understand if it will break any law or regulations in the relevant jurisdictions and consider whether it breaks the CIPR code of conduct. I can also see that the CIPR Code sets out four principles that are fundamental to good public relations practice: integrity, competence, transparency and confidentiality and as a membership organisation, Individual members are required to abide by the code and to encourage others to do the same.
To what extent do you think professional members who have accepted contracts to work on projects in Saudi Arabia have made the correct ethical decision?
How far do you think that these professionals have compromised their integrity which is required as part of the code of conduct?
Given the information which has been widely publicised about the human rights violations being carried out to make way for NEOM, to what extent do you think the PR organisations involved have told a transparent story of how the project is being developed? If these organisations happen to be corporate members of the CIPR, what implications would PR washing over human rights violations have on their membership?
It seems that the UK PR sector is not only staying silent about representing Saudi projects which are funded by the Saudi PIF, but they also seem proactive in wanting to work in representing or supporting brand Saudi Arabia.
I have some further questions:
1. Your values include “advancing communities by listening to all voices, amplifying the diverse insights of your members, championing their concerns, speaking your truth and being human,” To what extent do you think that professional members who are working with Saudi Arabian projects are therefore working in contradiction to the values of expected of them as a CIPR member? What measures would you expect your members who are working on Saudi Arabian projects to undertake in order to promote these values?
2. To what extent do you monitor whether members are working on projects that contradict the CIPR Code of Conduct, values and principles? What action would you take if you discover members are working with clients or states associated with human rights violations? Have you ever taken action on members who are working with Saudi Arabia?
3. I have read your 2020-2024 strategy which I assume is due for renewal for 2025. I cannot see anything in this strategy which talks about the CIPR (and members) role in accepting contracts from states or organisations who are committing human rights violations. You do mention that part of the CIPR (and members role) is to address some of the world’s intractable problems. If you accept that human rights violations are an intractable problem in Saudi Arabia, how would you suggest that your members address them?
4. How will you review the impact of the UK PR Industries’ contribution to human rights in states such as Saudi Arabia and offer guidance on how to ensure your values, principles and code of conduct are not compromised by any contract that the professional or corporate member accepts?
I would be grateful if you could take the time to answer my questions.
I will be publishing this letter as an open letter together with your response to it fourteen days after you have received it.
Kind Regards
Rebecca Patterson
Human Rights Campaigner
The Response from CIPR
Dear Ms Patterson
Thank you for your letter of 12 November about human rights in Saudi Arabia, in which you ask about the role of PR agencies in relation to our code of conduct.
The CIPR follows the same approach as applies in fields such as law, architecture, environmental management or accountancy. Professional bodies do not monitor or police their members, or direct them to avoid particular countries, government or projects in their work. This is because it is the member’s professional responsibility to judge for themselves whether they are becoming involved, for example, in greenwashing or reputation-laundering.
The only exception to this general approach is where there are legal sanctions in place, as there are currently against the Russian Federation, Belarus and Iran, and here we take steps to ensure that our members do not inadvertently breach the law.
The individual practitioner or agency must satisfy themselves that the work they are undertaking is consistent with our code of conduct. If it appears not to be, they should either negotiate with the client to secure changes that would make it so, or they should decline the work. The CIPR has not dealt with any complaints against a member arising from their work in or for Saudi Arabia.
If someone believes that a particular practitioner or agency has potentially breached the code of conduct, it is open to them to raise a complaint against that member. For CIPR members this can be done by contacting Mr Chris Lines, our Professional Practice and Ethics Consultant, who oversees our complaint process. If a complaint is brought, then our Professional Standards Panel would want to know what steps the member had taken to satisfy themselves that they were acting ethically in taking on and executing work on behalf of the client, and how they had continued to uphold the code of conduct in their work.
In 2022 we published new guidance for our members on ‘Know Your Client’ procedures which are intended to help them make these judgements more effectively. It is possible that some members may nevertheless be continuing to accept or undertake work that places them at risk of breaching our code of conduct. In the light of the points you have raised I will ask our Professional Practices Committee to review what we can do to support our members more effectively in future to avoid ending up in this situation.
Yours sincerely
Alastair McCapra
Chief Executive
Commentary
The response from CIPR does at least grapple with some of the issues raised although it starts off seeming to go down the route of denial and shifting the blame, whereas one would have thought that a professional body with Chartered status must acknowledge some responsibility for monitoring the actions of its member organisations.
The reply does however go on to helpfully clarify how complaints over professional misconduct can be broached and the comments concerning the “Know Your Client” procedure and the referral to their Professional Practices Committee in the last paragraph are much to be welcomed.
It is our belief that many PR agencies may have jumped on the bandwagon of promoting the glamorous image of NEOM Saudi Arabia wants the world to see without undertaking the due diligence required by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights as mentioned in our original letter.
We believe it would be in their interests to do so and it will be interesting to see what recommendations CIPR’s Professional Practices Committee come up with.
If you would like to get involved with Newcastle Amnesty Saudi Arabia Sub Group, please contact newcastleamnestyinternational@gmail.com.
Colin Taylor and Rebecca Patterson
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
