Dear Mr Harrington (UK Editor PR Week)
I’m contacting you with regard to my concern at the level of contribution from the PR (and more specifically the UK PR) industry in arguably supporting the cover-up of human rights violations in Saudi Arabia.
I believe that the interest in and investment towards Saudi Arabia has been achieved through a sustained PR drive to project a false image that the KIngdom of Saudi Arabia is a forward-thinking, futuristic and attractive country to invest, visit, work and live. Through careful crisis and reputation management, which I understand to be services that some UK PR organisations are offering to the state, Saudi Arabia has been enabled to deflect away from any potential ‘challenges’ that may halt the development of the Kingdom.
As a former PR and Marketing Executive, I’m trying to understand why the draw of working with the Kingdom seems to take over any moral or ethical decision making that professionals will be presented with when considering whether to work with the state.
I can see that you released a Podcast in 2022 “Edelman Saudi and More”, which discusses many of the issues I have with organisations working for a state committing human rights offences and the morality in doing this.
The podcast itself claims that the human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia have been well reported and despite this, Edelman decided to work for the Saudi Government. Whilst the podcast focuses on the ethical and transparency issues of organisations working with Saudi Arabia, I believe that the conversation has now moved on from whether it is ‘ethically’ justified for agencies to be working with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as a state..
I feel that serious questions need to be raised openly by – and of – the PR sector to understand the extent of how, not if, organisations are assisting the state in sustaining an image that deflects away from the human rights abuses being carried out in and by Saudi Arabia. It is an industry-wide issue, and it seems the PR agencies who have the leverage to call-out these risks are taking [only or largely?] the positive of actively working with the Kingdom, thus normalising these partnerships which is setting a poor standard for other agencies to follow.
Beyond 2022, I cannot see any critical content from PR Week asking questions about why PR agencies continue to work with Saudi Arabia, despite the ongoing reports of sustained human rights violations.
I know from reading PR Week that one of the ways PR organisations (including Katch International, Action Global Communication, The PC Agency and Publicis Groupe Kekst) have become connected to Saudi Arabia is by broadening their reach by opening offices in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
You have also reported on UK agencies that have provided services to Saudi Arabia. These include Ruder Finn who were brought in to assist the Saudi Defence Ministry in the US with
PR and Communications, Square in the Air who worked on the PR for the Saudi World Cup as well as The Jockey Club of Saudi Arabia, and also Rebecomms who led the PR and Communications for the Invest Saudi Pavilion at MIPIM 2024.
All of these organisations have a connection to the UK, which could be either that they are directly based in the UK or through the example of Ruder Finn are offering services via their New York office but also have a base in London.
From what I have read and understood from the quotes of spokespeople from these agencies, the draw to work in or with Saudi Arabia provides steps to expand the organisations’ reach, develop into new sectors, operations and establish stronger relationships with Saudi clients. Some agencies are even citing ‘the growth and evolution in Saudi Arabia’ as being an ‘optimum time’ for their organisation to ‘re-establish a physical in-market presence.’ Some organisations are quoted as saying “ … I’m proud to be part of the team that’s bringing KSA and its plans for Vision 2030 further into the spotlight.”
You have also reported on PR Professionals who have taken a decision to join Saudi based organisations. This includes ex-Edelman Chief Sabrina Larese who has left the Saudi Arabian Edelman Office to join SEC Newgate in Saudi Arabia. Peter Bellini, who previously worked for well-known UK based firms Hill & Knowlton, Edelman, WPP, Ogilvy as well as the Conservative Party has also now joined Pure Consulting in Saudi Arabia.
I can see from the quotes from these professionals that the growth potential in the Kingdom is a huge attraction, and for some, the opportunity to ‘deliver the narrative of Saudi Arabia’s transformation to the world’ is a hugely ‘exciting challenge’, helping Saudi Arabia to ‘engage the world in its transformation in the most relevant and effective way.’
And for the Saudi based organisations employing UK PR Professionals, the hiring of these professionals helps the state to strengthen its strategic support to realise regional ambitions through knowledgeable and skillful PR professionals who have left reputable world-renowned PR agencies.
The passion and enthusiasm from UK professionals in working on or bidding to work on the Saudi Vision along with the apparent lack of questioning from the sector and poor due diligence must certainly provide the Kingdom with the reassurance and ammunition to carry on with their plans for development; despite human rights organisations calling out the violations taking place amidst the continuous movement towards 2030 and the UK PR sectors’ willingness to “whitewash” these.
Then there is also the obvious; the money on offer to PR agencies who are willing to compromise their professional and personal integrity to wash over the real operations of the Saudi state in order to present to the world the ‘desirable’ futuristic image of Saudi Arabia. A vision that arguably will only benefit the few and not the many.
I believe that the impact of a UK PR organisation or Professional being used by Saudi Arabia, and more specifically to work on Vision 2030 (and NEOM), (both funded by Public Investment Fund), is helping the Kingdom to present to the world an exciting and ‘sustainable’ image; making it more attractive to UK organisations to want to work with the Kingdom and more seriously, helping the Kingdom to conceal their sustained human rights violations.
These include the forcible eviction by the Saudi state of around 20,000 members of the indigenous Howeitat tribe to make way for NEOM which 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.
This PR activity also undermines the work of human rights defenders inside Saudi Arabia who are being jailed and persecuted by the state. These include Dr. Mohammed al-Qahtani who was the co-founder of the now disbanded Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association (ACPRA) and is serving a 10-year prison sentence on charges relating to his peaceful human rights work, Salma Al-Sheha, Mohammed Al-Ghamdi and Manahel Al-Otaibi, both of whom have connections in the UK and have been imprisoned and tortured for exercising their right of freedom of expression in tweeting about women’s rights.
Many of the organisations I’ve mentioned have women who are at board level and some of the professionals mentioned above are also women who have taken on leading roles in Saudi Arabia.
Q: To what extent do you think these agencies and professionals are displaying double standards in supporting a state who is actively persecuting women for expressing their right to freely speak about women’s rights? How far do you think that it is appropriate for these organisations and individuals to be providing services, expertise and giving voice to strengthen an authoritarian state which is still working against women’s rights and ironically, does not support freedom of speech and expression which is what the communication industry is all about?
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.
If the UK PR organisations who are involved with Saudi Arabia had conducted due diligence efficiently, this process would have potentially identified the range of human right violations that it could be directly or indirectly linked to including reports that 21,000 foreign workers from countries including Bangladesh and Nepal have died since Vision 2030 was launched eight years ago in 2016 (based on data released in India and as featured in a recent ITV Documentary).
It seems that the balance and sentiment of content you are producing on PR Week leans towards being positive about the reported organisations working with Saudi Arabia. I feel you / PR Week do this by not reporting on Saudi human rights violations in the articles which detail new partnerships and contracts between UK organisations and professionals and the state.
Another way you are doing this is through your Middle East PR Powerbook which you / PR Week describe as ‘featuring the most powerful and influential comms leaders in the region.’ Through this, I believe you give great power, status and credibility to a number of professionals who are operating in Saudi Arabia. I can see this includes two professionals from Sadara Chemical Company of Saudi Arabia, Katch International, Action Global Communications (silver partners), Burson and Edelman (gold partners) who are also sponsors of the Power Book and who feature their annual Trust Barometer on your site. My understanding is that these individuals are selected by the PR Week EMEA Editorial Team and the Head of PRCA MENA.
In addition, you / PR Week have used your UK PR Power Book to name a professional from Instinctif Partners (an agency which has expanded by opening an office into Saudi Arabia) as well as individuals from Edelman, Ogilvy, Kekst, The PC agency, Havas, SEC Newgate (who all have agencies in Saudi Arabia) and a professional who works in-house for organisations including Amazon, an organisation which was the subject of an Amnesty report released earlier this year. Why do you think giving a Power Status to an individual who is leading an organisation like Amazon is a standard that you’d like to set for anyone joining the industry to aspire to?
You have also given Margery Kraus of APCO a place in your PR Week Power List 2024. The article states that APCO’s Middle East Revenue grew by 28.1% a year demonstrating that money is one of the key reasons that these agencies are operating in Saudi Arabia. The agency has had an office in Riyadh since 2018 as well as London.
I feel that giving professionals and organisations involved in Saudi Arabia either a ranking in your PR Power Book or a place in your Power List endorses their activities in supporting an authoritarian state that is widely reported as committing gross human rights acts on dissidents and migrants. The publication’s continued use of the word ‘Power’ is therefore worrying, particularly since the criteria to be voted into the 2024 Power Book is centred around seniority within key organisations in the region; the size and importance of the organisations they represent; their influence on, and contribution to and the professional comms business in the Middle East; as well as their personal achievements and networks. So not only is the UK PR industry helping a state to whitewash its human rights crimes, the content you are publishing could be argued to assist them in doing so.
Q: To what extent would you / PR Week agree that the decision making as to who should be included in this Power Book should include questions around leadership in ensuring effective due diligence and decision making is taken so that services provided are not contributing to or linked to human rights violations being carried out?
Q: How do you / PR Week react to the argument that the power of these individuals and organisations is being harnessed by the Saudi state to further its development despite committing human rights violations against migrants and dissidents? To what extent do you think PR Week should be holding these PR professionals in such high regard?
PR Week describes itself as “the world’s leading PR and Comms publication.” With this in mind, I feel the publication should be providing a voice, commentary and opinion on the risks and consequences of PR Organisations and Professionals becoming involved in operating in or working with Saudi Arabia, knowing that the Kingdom is actively committing gross human rights violations against dissidents and migrants.
Both myself and my fellow campaigners work very hard to highlight the risks of working with Saudi Arabia and our lives are made more difficult by the fact that the attractive and untrue narrative of the Kingdom is continuously powered and propped-up by an industry wide PR machine which is very difficult to challenge. It arguably suggests a complete lack of respect for human rights in the industry
Finally, I have read your UK editorial guidelines that you published in January this year (2024).
In your / PR Week’s ‘People Move Stories’ section, you ask that when people are appointed they describe what the role entails. For the new appointments mentioned on PR Week who have started working for Saudi Arabia based organisations, I am struggling to see why your publication has not printed any details or opinions of the human rights issues taking place in
the Kingdom, despite the decision by the professional to join the agency in the Saudi state, or to join an agency who services clients in Saudi Arabia.
In your / PR Week ‘Account win stories’ section, you mention that ‘account wins’ form the basis of your ‘New Business Ranking Tables.’ In addition your analysis of the table includes the number of agencies who made it to the new-business league. So if any of these agencies are working on Saudi Arabia based clients that are linked to human rights violations, is it a great way to encourage the sector to measure success based on number of account wins and how high-up their agency is in the PR Week Business Ranking League? Are these things more important than the risk of winning new business that is linked to human rights violations?
You / PR Week also say that you look at these rankings to see if they warrant a main story. I can see at least one agency, Lotus, who are currently featured in the top half of the business league and won Cruise Saudi in 2023 ( which is an organisation that is 100% PIF owned).
The factors included in your / PR Week guidelines as to whether the ranking of their agency warrants a story include ‘scope and value of the account,’ ‘the prominence of the client and agency,’ ‘’if there was a big pitch process’ and ‘whether there is something especially new or unusual about the brief.’
Q: To what extent do you / PR Week think extending these factors to questions around e.g the level of due diligence carried out before winning a client and shifting attitudes toward how the PR sector measures success away from factors such as revenue, size of agency and number of client wins. would help to open-up conversations in the industry about the implication of working with clients and accepting contracts that could be linked to human rights violations?
I would be grateful if you could take the time to read this letter and respond with your / PR Week’s views, opinions and if possible answers to my questions. I intend to make this letter and your response open to the public after 14 days of sending this correspondence.
Kind Regards
Rebecca Patterson
Human Rights Campaigner
Response from John Harrington
Dear Rebecca, thanks for your message. I have a statement here, attributable to Haymarket/PRWeek:
“Thank you for getting in touch. As a B2B trade brand, PRWeek’s role is to reflect the industry we serve.
We are guided by industry standards, government decisions and jurisdictions, including sanctions where applicable.
Our responsibility is to report facts and serve our audience with high quality editorial content, remaining impartial and without expressing personal political opinions.”
All the best, John
John Harrington
UK Editor | PRWeek
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
