During our research into understanding AtkinsRealis appointment to work on NEOM and the subsequent link between the UK based engineering organisation and the Saudi Arabian development (which has been proven to be linked to human rights violations); we found that there was a failure by the leading trade engineering press to mention any associated human rights violations with the contract.
Instead we found that at the time of the announcement of the partnership and in previous reported articles around UK organisations working in Saudi Arabia; New Civil Engineering Trade Magazine’s article held a positive sentiment towards the contract and provided a major disservice by not informing them of the dangers that companies may expose themselves to if they get involved with Saudi-led projects such as NEOM.
Similarly, in our work researching the role of the UK PR Industry in supporting and sustaining an image of Saudi Arabia that washes over the serious human rights violations committed by the Kingdom; we found that the leading PR trade press publications are following a similar pattern
We found a lack of content in PR Week detailing the subsequent risks of UK PR organisations representing brands that are either affiliated with or actually supporting projects that are committing or contributing to human rights violations in Saudi Arabia.
Concerned about the Saudi state’s use of UK PR resources to gloss over the human rights abuses that are being carried out, we wrote to the editor of the leading trade publication in the PR Sector John Harrington.
There are a few points that Harrington mentions in his response that I’d like to pick out:
“Reflect the Industry we serve”
Obviously the PR industry is vast, multidimensional and is made up of professionals working at a number of different levels, in various sectors and disciplines.
So a piece of content that a PR professional who works in the ‘for purpose’ or ‘not for profit sector’ will find useful and perhaps thought-leading will be very different from a PR professional who works in e.g The Property sector.
My guess is that PR professionals who work in the ‘for-purpose’ or not for profit sectors or perhaps agencies who are more consciously aware of which clients they align their values to are probably more inclined to be receptive to content detailing the risks of working with clients based in Saudi Arabia.
But as we’ve found, in the case of learning more about PR Week; any content detailing UK PR professionals or organisations’ involvement in Saudi Arabia is met with silence from seemingly the whole industry – including any calling out of agencies who are risking or actually contributing to human rights violations.
“Guided by Industry Standards”
Which industry standards are PR Week referring to?
Having since checked the policies of Haymarket group, I can’t see anything in them that would infringe on the ability of the publication to report on human rights violations committed in and by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
On the contrary, Haymarket seems to fully understand the importance of human rights within supply chains, as expressed in Haymarket’s Global Supplier Code of Conduct which mentions that the organisation has “an integrity-based approach to our supply chain and to our social responsibilities and it’s important to us that our suppliers have the same ethos..” and outlines a commitment to principles including the United Nations Global Compact and the Modern Day Slavery Act.
Haymarket policies also mention that the organisation is “Guided by Personal Opinion” – so where are the opinions about the risk of UK PR organisations contributing to human rights violations?
“Reporting Facts.”
PR Week is reporting the facts, but the articles aren’t balanced with prominent and relevant news about human rights violations in Saudi Arabia – even in the more recent articles detailing appointments in the Kingdom.
“Impartial”
I’m inclined to question the level of impartiality the publication has when one of their biggest sponsors are agencies including Edelman, who operates in Saudi Arabia.
“Guided by Political Opinions” and “Guided by Government Decisions, Jurisdictions and Sanctions”
Harrington’s letter implies the human rights abuses are not facts despite being reported as such numerous times.
Are human rights a political matter when a-political organisations such as Amnesty have detailed gross human rights violations taking place in Saudi Arabia and organisations based in the Kingdom, Or perhaps is it Harrington’s personal political opinion that human rights violations are acceptable?
