Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pubrev

Full Length Article

Public relations practitioners’ attitudes towards the ethical use of

social media in Portuguese speaking countries
⁎
Sónia Pedro Sebastião , Giovana Zulato, Tânia Belo Santos
ISCSP, CAPP, University of Lisbon, Polo Universitário da Ajuda, Rua Almerindo Lessa, 1300-663 Lisbon, Portugal

AR TI CLE I NF O AB S T R A CT

Keywords: Based on Toledano and Avidar (2016) method and questionnaire statements, and inspired by its
Public relations theory, this paper focuses on studies about internet-related public relations from an ethical
Social media standpoint. As such, this study’s objective is to assess the attitudes of public relations
Ethics practitioners (PRs) while using social media professionally, identifying some ethical issues and
Survey
the implications of their perceptions, by means of a quantitative study supported by an online
Cross-cultural
survey. A questionnaire, which included thirteen attitude statements related to transparency,
authenticity, truthfulness and respect for competition, plus five demographic questions, has been
applied to PRs from Portugal and Brazil. Research questions include concerns about PRs’
attitudes towards ethically acceptable or non-acceptable online public relations practices and the
influence of socio-cultural environments, namely, of countries’ human freedoms respect and
levels of transparency in PRs’ ethical attitudes. Results show no significant differences between
practitioners from Portugal and Brazil. Portuguese and Brazilian PRs share common cultural
attributes that might explain similar perceptions around professional ethics. As for ethical
dimensions, authenticity and transparency are not vehemently defended in both countries.

1. Introduction

Research on internet-related public relations has been improving in recent years, with an increasing number of published articles
(Duhé, 2015; Ye & Ki, 2012). Despite the possible outdating of Ye and Ki’s study (2012), it seems safe to state that online public
relations research still lacks applied theoretical framework (symmetry and dialogic theories are still predominant), in-depth
qualitative studies are scarce and there is a concentration of studies on the use of digital platforms rather than a critical analysis of its
effects and ways to improve the medium.
Furthermore, most of the research conducted so far has attempted to provide recommendations to practitioners on how to take
advantage of these technologies to help organisations build relationships, solve problems, and enact socially responsible goals.
Rational arguments include the need for ethical behaviour (e.g. Brown, 2009; Macnamara & Zerfass, 2012), seen as a notable concern
of social media research in public relations (Duhé, 2015).
Bearing this lack of reflective research, this study is a contribution to the understanding of internet-related public relations from
an ethical standpoint considering pr practices in different cultural environments and, in particular, in the Portuguese speaking
cultural context. This paper does not intend to present a discussion about the ontology of ethics and ethical behaviour (e.g. Bowen,
Hung-Baesecke, & Chen, 2016, p. 5), but to shed light on the perceived importance of this kind of behaviour while using social media
in public relations practice of different countries. Ethics is, as such, considered specifically among perceptions of communication

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ssebastiao@iscsp.ulisboa.pt (S.P. Sebastião), giovanazulato@yahoo.com.br (G. Zulato), taniabelosantos@gmail.com (T.B. Santos).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.03.012
Received 4 April 2016; Received in revised form 30 March 2017; Accepted 30 March 2017
0363-8111/ © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Pedro Sebastião, S., Public Relations Review (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.03.012
S.P. Sebastião et al. Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

practices previously selected by Toledano and Avidar (2016). For the purpose of this article, social media include profiles in social
media networks (such as facebook, instagram, twitter, among others); channels in online video platforms (like youtube, vimeo, and
others) and weblogs.
The article is organized as follows: literature review on social media and public relations and online public relations ethics;
characterization of Portugal and Brazil’s transparency and human freedoms respect for the understanding of cultural and social
environments and their possible influence on ethics perception by public relations professionals; and description of both countries
public relations consultancy’s market and internet use. These countries have a common history and are both part of the “Lusophone
cultural context” because of their Portuguese-speaking language matrix. Still, different geographical and cultural processes may make
them socially distinct. Results are presented and discussed using data collected from applied surveys and existing theoretical
contributes.

2. Literature review

2.1. Social media and public relations

Social media and online platforms integration into organisational communication strategies has been intensively discussed over
these past years. Social media research is even considered as one of the most prolific for communication studies despite its limited
intellectual diversity and somehow a theoretical nature (Osch & Coursaris, 2014, 2015). The focus of research has shifted from a
normative standpoint related to more symmetrical and dialogical communication theoretical approaches (e.g. Brown, 2009; Duhé,
2012; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Kent & Taylor, 1998; Kent, Taylor, & White, 2003; Wright, 2001) towards rational arguments about
benefits, limits and structural prerequisites of online strategies (e.g. Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy, & Silvestre, 2011;
Macnamara & Zerfass, 2012; Treem & Leonardi, 2012) and empirical studies about online practices (e.g. Gilpin, 2010;
Einwiller & Steilen, 2015; Kim, Park, & Wertz, 2010; Men & Tsai, 2012).
Although the literature (e.g. Diga & Kelleher, 2009; Wright & Hinson, 2015) and cross-national studies (such as ECOPSI (Tench
et al., 2013) and ECM (Zerfass et al., 2014)) indicate that practitioners demonstrate awareness and knowledge of social media and its
principles, organisations generally fail to make efficient and effective use of the potential for two-way symmetrical communication
and dialogue, that may be seen as “one of the most ethical forms of communication”, allowing to separate truth from falsehood,
requiring honesty and equality between objects (Kent & Taylor, 2002; p. 22). There are difficulties in dialogic engagement, mutuality
of commitment and interest, since organizations tend to have a predetermined outcome, raising questions of continuity, trust and
authenticity. Thus, online platforms are failing their dialogical and symmetrical potential (e.g. Kent & Taylor, 1998; McAllister-
Spooner, 2009). Media are, first of all, techno-social systems: the “technological level of artefacts” enables and constrains “a social
level of activities that create knowledge” to be “produced, diffused and consumed with the help of the artefacts” (Fuchs, 2014; p. 37).
In the last years, it has been acknowledged that, technically, social media offer many opportunities to engage with internet users,
supporting communication, sharing content and promoting dialogue, but they are not automatically dialogical since organizations
may not convey the features of mutuality, propinquity, empathy or even commitment (Kent & Taylor, 2002). Social media may
promote “quick, fast, instant conversations” and keep “relationships at a more superficial level” (Goldstraw, 2015; p. 354), but not all
organisations want or must use it. Some organisations do not have the resources or the adequate structures to engage; others do not
have a branch or a culture to promote dialogic communication; also, dialogue may not be the best way of communication for some
organisations (Young, 2015) or the risk may be too high. Besides “social media is not an adequate media relations tool to use in
isolation, but should be utilized as part of a mixture of communication methods” (Goldstraw, 2015; p. 355). Even so, “social media
cannot be managed by avoidance” nor all organisations must have a social media profile, but “systematic monitoring” of its social
media mentions is mandatory because of risks social media “poses for the management of corporate identity” (Motion,
Heath, & Leitch, 2016, p. 36). Finally, the use of social media is affected by the kind and nature of organisations, their power
structure, and “contradictory continuities and discontinuities” (Fuchs, 2014; p. 43) that shape each social and cultural environment
where organisations operate.
The potential and the way social media tools are used in the communicative realm and in public relations practice have caught the
attention of several scholars with more or less optimistic approaches (Valentini, 2015). Despite criticism, a more recent study
developed with Israeli PRs highlights that, since 2010 and with the economic crisis of traditional media, the blogosphere tends to be
used by PRs as a channel to showcase matters on specific areas, such as: lifestyle, entertainment, cosmetics, tourism and culture.
Bloggers are willing to cooperate with PRs in exchange of financial and social compensation, abdicating of their independence and
accepting PRs’ control over weblog content (Lahav & Roth-Cohen, 2016). Comparing Kent’s (2008) conclusions with Lahav and Roth-
Cohen’s (2016) and following diffusion of innovations theory (Rogers, 1962/2003), PRs and bloggers may currently be more prone to
accept the change in practice provoked by weblogs. Yet, this acceptance poses ethical concerns that are still lacking discussion.

2.2. Social media and ethics

As previously stated, social media are mostly studied in the context of their uses, particularly in media relations, and in
ascertaining their dialogical potential. Ethical questions remain absent from most studies reviewed (Duhé, 2015; Vercic,
Vercic, & Sriramesh, 2014). Some exceptions are: the cross-national discussion about ethical behaviour of PRs using social media
developed in New Zealand and Israel by Toledano and Wolland (2011) and by Toledano and Avidar (2016); the case studies and
ethical principles guidelines systematics proposed by Bowen (2013a, 2013b) and the same author’s and colleagues qualitative study

2
S.P. Sebastião et al. Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

regarding the role of ethics as a precursor to building organisation-public relationships (Bowen et al., 2016). Finally, Valentini (2015)
critically highlighted that, because online environment is polluted with fake content and unethical practices, publics will likely
“immunize themselves against persuasive online messages” (p. 175). Consequently, it is up to the public relations practitioners to
assess the nature of organisations social media practices in order to provide “ethical, responsible advice to their organisations”
(Valentini, 2015; p. 175).
Nevertheless, the public relations profession itself is not exempt from ethical challenges. As summarized by L’Etang (2011, p.
221), key ethical issues and debates about public relations include “manipulation (…), lying, sophistry, pandering, bribery, distorting
the channels of public communication or dominating the public sphere, serving the powerful (…), and generating inauthenticity
within society through the practices of puffery and the assumptions of promotional culture”. So, how can these professionals serve as
whistle-blowers of organizations ethical misconduct?
Considering the nature of its practice – influence the construction of public opinion – it is not surprising that the concepts of public
relations and ethics are inseparable since the early days of the profession. Some authors, while ascertaining the excellence theory,
consider that ethics underlies the very definition of activity, following the line of thought that can be traced at least to Plato (Cheney,
Munshi, May, & Ortiz, 2011). For instance, the concept of symmetry is extant in the two-way communication model in public
relations presented by Grunig: “the two-way symmetrical model avoids the problem of ethical relativism because it defines ethics as a
process of public relations rather than an outcome” (Grunig & Grunig, 1992, p. 308). By assuming that the relationship with the
public can be used to provide more balanced and symmetrical decision-making, organisations can achieve more in their long-term
goals, integrating some of their publics’ inputs. Hence, this will provide more beneficial, lasting, and therefore inherently ethical
relationships, for both organisations and publics (Bowen, 2007). Nevertheless, communication and PRs must always take into account
that ethics “is about ‘doing the right thing’ (sic) in a given situation” (Cheney et al., 2011; p. 3), considering a philosophical framing
and allowing “pluralistic interpretations and applications that reflect and foster” differences from specific cultural environments (Ess,
2011; p. 217). After all, “ethics is a discipline that deals with what is good and bad with a moral duty and obligation” (Hyde, 2011; p.
32).
The rapid changes brought by technological evolution, the emergence of the Internet and the spread of social media not only
revive old ethical issues, but also bring new challenges to PRs (Jensen, 2011; Phillips & Young, 2009). Yet, ethics in the digital
universe remains scarcely explored by public relations scholars. Taking in mind that “to be able to operate, organisations need to be
accepted and approved by their stakeholders and society as legitimate and responsible entities” (Toledano & Wolland, 2011; p. 44)
and that legitimacy is based on publics’ perception constructed through communicative practice; if communication and public
relations do not perform ethically, legitimacy gaps can arise and put the organisation’s survival at risk. After all, public relations
practice has a negative reputation for unethically manipulative behaviour (Moloney, 2000; L’Etang, 2011), particularly tied to its
historical background and to its rhetorical tradition (Heath, 2006; Valentini, 2015).
Ethical behaviour is sustained as “a precursor to building authentic, long-term relationships with publics that will eventually
benefit an organisation’s effectiveness and reputation” (Bowen et al., 2016, p. 1) and it is a necessary condition for trusting
relationships. Ethical behaviour and all communication efforts entailed by organisations seek to influence the manner their
reputation is perceived by publics. The efforts mentioned include presence in the online realm and the associated use of online media
self-presenting activities, “which collectively express the organisation’s identity and promote a particular image” (Gilpin, 2010; p.
265).
In public relations praxis, ethical behaviour includes right to privacy, confidentiality agreements, informed consent, credibility
and veracity of information, mutuality (reciprocity), openness (Goldstraw, 2015). These do not exist in examples of less ethical
communicative actions that can be executed in the digital realm, like: fake social network profiles, rogue websites, attack websites
(online platforms created by interest groups or even by private citizens in order to express opinions, to parody, denigrate or report the
organization’s bad practices; they can also be created as guerrilla marketing actions by competition), chain letters (email messages
broadcasted to contact lists with content that may: question the legitimacy of organizations; fake signature collection for petitions; or
even be disseminated on the organization’s behalf to advertise products or false contests and prizes, thus deceiving consumers) and
phishing (also developed by e-mail, but without the viral nature of chain letters, it is intended to obtain personal data and access
codes on behalf of an organization). Moreover, Jensen (2011) advocates for transparency, truthfulness, authenticity and market
respect, sustaining that those who communicate online must disclose payments and gifts they receive for fabricated content and
cannot plagiarize or misrepresent their affiliations.
Bearing in mind Kant’s philosophy, Bowen (2013a, 2013b) has synthetized ethical behaviour in social media by observing the
guidelines related to: fairness, prudency, transparency, deception and secrecy avoidance, authenticity, rationality, clarity,
truthfulness and consistency. According to Bowen, the fragmented and rapidly changing communication environment “heighten
[s] the ethical imperative for accuracy, honesty, and full disclosure” (2013, p. 131) since publics are entering the communicative
process at fast pace, and imposing more symmetry to it. It is important for public relations professionals to understand the rules of
social media environment in order to foster appropriate engagement and less promotional and rhetorical messages (Motion et al.,
2016; p. 32).
In sum, and considering previous ethical dimensions presented by Jensen (2011), Bowen (2013a, 2013b) and Goldstraw (2015),
this article pinpoints the ethical dimensions of transparency tied to full disclosure of source identity, interest and benefit; truthfulness
of information and practice; authenticity of voices avoiding deception and respect for publics and market.

3
S.P. Sebastião et al. Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

3. Countries environments

3.1. Transparency and freedom in Portugal and Brazil

PRs use several communication tools to spread their messages and fulfil their professional mission. Despite the existence of a form
of globalized practice, public relations functions are culturally determined (L’Etang, 2011). The use of tools and means occurs in a
context of democracy, freedom and transparency, as stated by Toledano and Avidar (2016), whose analytical model is followed in this
paper. As such, it is important to acknowledge international rankings from both countries and compare their positions with the data
collected in this study. Considering the Index of Human Freedom (Fraser Institute, 2013) that includes freedom of movement,
freedom of expression (including freedom of the press) and freedom of relationships, Portugal is ranked as #25 and Brazil as #50, in a
total of 123 countries (Vásquez and Štumberger, 2012).
Through its Corruption Perceptions Index (2014), the ranking of Transparency International measures the perceived levels of
public sector corruption in 175 countries and territories. This index is based on expert opinions about the public sector corruption.
Countries’ scores can be helped by open government where the public can hold leaders to account, while a poor score is a sign of
prevalent bribery, lack of punishment for corruption, and public institutions that do not respond to citizens’ needs. Portugal is ranked
31st in the world demonstrating average levels of corruption in the Western context. Brazil is ranked 69th. In recent years, there were
many public scandals covered by national and international media and involving public companies such as Petrobras and politicians
linked to the Workers’ Party, of which the last president, Dilma Rousseff was a member.
According to The Reporters without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index (2015), Portugal ranked #26 in the list of 180 countries
rising from #30 in 2014, and signalling no freedom press abuse or violence against journalists or press assistants. Thanks to freedom
of speech, pluralism legal demands and corruption index, public relations’ profession has developed in the country balancing between
two axes: on the one hand, ethical demands related to ethical and professional codes; on the other hand, public criticism and
connotation as soft propaganda and public opinion manipulation (Gonçalves, 2012).
The situation in Brazil is rather different. Brazil ranks #99 with the safety of journalists and the concentration of media ownership
in the hands of a few as major problems. Acts of violence against journalists take place constantly and in 2014 two journalists were
killed during waves of civic protests. Additionally, the profession of journalist is dominated by economic and political powers.
To sum up, on the Fraser Index of Human Freedom the gap between Portugal and Brazil is 25 points on a list including 123
countries while on the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index of 175 countries the gap is 38 points. So Portugal is
ranked consistently higher but on both these indexes the gap between Portugal and Brazil is not very significant. The same does not
happen on the World Press Freedom Index where Brazil is 73 points down Portugal in a list of 180 countries.
As the two countries present different levels of transparency and human freedoms, public relations and journalism develop in
diverse socio-cultural environments. Do these environments affect practitioners’ attitudes to ethical issues on social media? Or do
more respectful human freedoms and transparency environments inspire public relations professionals to more ethical attitudes?

3.2. Cultural contexts

The countries cultural contexts can be summarized using Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) five cultural dimensions: 1) power distance; 2)
individualism vs. collectivism; 3) masculinity vs. femininity; 4) uncertainty avoidance; and 5) long term orientation (work and life
perspectives) – see Graph 1.
Briefly, the Hofstede Centre (n/a) data profiles Portugal with 63 for power distance. Meaning that there is a relatively high power
distance in the country’s society. On the one hand, management controls, centralizing authority; on the other hand, subordinates
expect their boss to control them. Portugal is low on the individualism scale (27), which means the Portuguese people still value the
collective dimension. Considering differences in gender roles, Portuguese society can be classified as feminine (31), as polarization
and competition are not really appreciated. People value cooperation in their working lives, favouring to resolve conflicts through
compromise and negotiation. In view of uncertainty avoidance, Portuguese people feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown
situations and have created institutions that try to avoid these, such as rules and systems of conservative beliefs. Portugal scores 99 in
this dimension. Finally, Portuguese have short term orientation. A mark of 28 shows that Portuguese are mainly normative,
exhibiting respect for traditions, a moderate propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving immediate results.
The same source profiles Brazil as a country that respects hierarchy and finds inequalities acceptable. A score of 69 in power
distance reveals recognition for the higher benefits of power holders. Brazil values the collective dimension (38), meaning that
integration into cohesive groups (especially represented by the extended family) is cherished. The masculinity dimension presents an
intermediate score of 49 revealing balance between cooperation and competition in society. As for uncertainty avoidance, Brazil’s
society shows “a strong need for rules and elaborate legal systems in order to structure life. The individual’s need to obey these laws,
however, is weak” (The Hofstede Centre, n/a). Finally, Brazil scores an intermediate mark in terms of orientation, figuring balance
between conservatism and innovation.
Graph 1 displays moderate cultural differences between the two countries, particularly in the dimensions of masculinity,
uncertainty avoidance and orientation. Brazil tends to have a higher balance between competition and cooperation in order to detach
itself from tradition and embrace the future within a more pragmatic approach. However, Brazil’s society still needs normative
systems; obedience to rules is weaker than in Portugal, reflecting the corruption rates of the country.
As for power distance (an important criteria to ethics), there are similarities between the two countries. Portugal and Brazil tend
to accept hierarchy and social inequalities, and this falls behind open and democratic societies. As both Portugal and Brazil are

4
S.P. Sebastião et al. Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Graph 1. Hofstede’s cultural country profiles.

Source: The Hofstede Centre (n/a).

similar on this dimension, Portuguese and Brazilian PRs share common cultural attributes that might explain similar perceptions
around professional ethics.

3.3. Portugal: public relations sector and internet use

Currently there are three associations competing for the leading representing role of the Public Relations and Communication
Portuguese consultancy market: APAP (Portuguese Association of Advertising, Communication and Marketing Agencies), created in
1969, that operates with Advertising Agencies, and has lately spread its scope; APCE (Portuguese Association of Corporative
Communication), founded in 1990 and that gathers communication practitioners, faculty, students and companies; APECOM
(Portuguese Association of Business Consultancy for Communications and Public Relations) whose main focus is the representation of
company members and the dignity of the profession of communication and public relations consultancy in accordance with the
International Communication Consultancy Organization (ICCO) Stockholm Charter guidelines.
The fragmentation of the professional practice and market perception of the provided services are motivated by two main reasons:
lack of an associative and collaborative attitude in the Portuguese Communication and Public Relations market (Sebastião & Azevedo,
2014) and size of the Portuguese companies of Communication and Public Relations consultancy that largely remains micro
(freelance and less than 10 employees) with a few small and medium ones.
The diversity of classifications and sub-areas within the communications seal also contributes to a widespread perception of what
the tasks and responsibilities of a Communication and Public Relations practitioner are (Gonçalves, 2007). On the one hand, there are
several sub-areas under its responsibility: from media relations, marketing support, internal communication, institutional and
government relations, lobbying, social and cultural events management, for example. On the other hand, in Latin countries, “Public
Relations” is a wide range designation due to its association with functions of customer service which leads to the adoption of other
classifications like: Organisational, Institutional or Corporate Communications.
As for internet use, Portugal has a 67.6% penetration rate of Internet (Internet World Stats, 2015). Portuguese are increasingly
familiar with social networks and digital platforms (94% of social networking users have a Facebook account and 41% a YouTube
account).

3.4. Brazil: public relations sector and internet use

The Brazilian Association of Communication Agencies (ABRACOM) is the representative body of corporate communication
agencies in Brazil, that is, of companies that provide strategic communication and public relations services. Federal Law 5.377
(1967), regulated by Decree 63.283 (1968), requires communication professionals to have a degree in public relations and to be
registered as such. Nevertheless, there is a gap between the law and its practice (“the Brazilian market (…) has developed off of that
legislation” as stated by ABRACOM), and the Association is even conducting a campaign advocating for the need to diversity degrees
to enrich the sector. The slogan is “it is all corporate communication” and includes PR and journalism professionals. This campaign
however is opposed by the Federal Council of Public Relations Professionals (CONFERP) that considers media relations practice by

5
S.P. Sebastião et al. Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

professionals (and especially by journalists) without a degree in public relations as illegal and unethical.
ABRACOM is an affiliate of ICCO – International Communication Consultancy Organisation, but has its own ethical code,
available online (ABRACOM, n/a). Currently, ABRACOM has 205 members, 14 of which do not have active websites, 54 do not offer
digital communication services (not described in the company's portfolio) and 137 have these services with different labels such as:
digital communication; planning, updating and monitoring social networks; digital solutions; management in social media, among
others. Thus, most ABRACOM members realize the need to provide digital communication services in Brazil.
According to data from Brazilian Media Research almost half of Brazilians (48%) used the internet (PBM, 2015). The percentage
of people who used it on a daily basis grew from 26%, in 2014, to 37% in 2015.
GlobalWebIndex (2014) research points out online social networks have come to occupy more space in Brazil. In the fourth
quarter of 2014, 47% of Brazilians had a social network account. Despite the positive evolution, the percentage of Brazilians who do
not use the internet is still large (51%). Main reasons reside on economic, demographic and educational digital divide.

4. Method

Given that the objective of this study is to assess the attitudes of communication professionals in social media, identifying some
ethical issues and the implications of its practices, a quantitative research supported by an online survey has been used. The
questionnaire, based on Toledano and Avidar (2016), included thirteen attitude statements related to normative practice,
transparency, authenticity, truthfulness and respect for competition, plus five demographic questions. It was distributed online in
both countries between November and December 2015, in Portuguese language and with Brazilian adaptations.
In both countries, Communication and Public Relations Consultancies offering digital communication services were contacted and
asked to participate in the study by filling the online survey. Associations from Portugal (APECOM, APCE and APAP) and Brazil
(ABRACOM) were paramount to identifying practitioners and distributing the survey, nonetheless, professionals in both countries
were reluctant and unwilling to cooperate with academic studies due to lack of time, misunderstanding of the importance of results,
or, in this particular study, because ethics is a very sensitive topic and questions may be related to professionals’ conduct. This factor
also affects the social desirability bias as respondents tend to report socially expected behaviour or to choose the answer they perceive
as the one anticipated by the researcher.
Despite all difficulties, 100 answers were collected in Portugal (N = 100) and 44 in Brazil (N = 44). Both samples are very similar
in terms of socio-demographic features. In short, samples are mostly female; respondents have the average age of 30–35 years old and
are highly educated. They work in the private sector and their professional experience varies from 4 to 20 years.
In more detail: most Portuguese subjects (41%) were aged between 31 and 40 while Brazilian’s were slightly younger: 45% were
between 21 and 30. As for sex, 71% of Portuguese respondents and 57% of Brazilian’s were female. Both samples are highly educated.
98% of both countries’ subjects have academic qualifications at a higher education level (Portugal: 68% with a bachelor’s degree and
30% with master's or doctoral degree; Brazil: 77% have bachelor's degree and 20% with masters or doctorate). As for professional
engagement sector, most respondents played roles in the private sector: 80% of Portuguese subjects against 98% of the Brazilian
sample. Finally, respondents have diverse professional experience. In the Portuguese case, 42% of subjects had between 4 to 10 years
of professional experience and 30% between 11 to 20 years. As for Brazilians, they had mostly 1–20 years (37%) and between 4 and
10 years (34%) of professional experience.
None of the samples can be considered representative of the public relations consultancy sectors. Nevertheless, results give us an
interesting overview of PRs opinion about digital communication practices, related to ethical issues, and some insight into the use of
social media by these professionals in Portugal and Brazil.
Having in mind literature review previously introduced and Toledano and Avidar’s (2016), research questions are:
▓▓RQ1. Do diverse socio-cultural environments affect practitioners’ attitudes to ethical issues on social media?
▓▓RQ2. Which ethical dimension is more controversial: authenticity, transparency, truthfulness or respect for competition?
Since some of the statements are related to public relations’ practitioner responsibilities and commitment with public interest, the
thirteen attitude statements were grouped in four axes: normative practice, transparency, authenticity, truthfulness and respect for
competition. Each respondent had to use a Likert scale considering their agreement with the statement: 1. strongly disagree; 2.
disagree; 3. neither agree nor disagree; 4. agree; 5. strongly agree.

5. Results

Ethically founded, the normative approach intends to highlight if the rhetorical axe of public relations – and its somehow
deceptive nature (Valentini, 2015) – is perceived and approved by the queried subjects.
Considering results displayed on Table 1, it is possible to observe that Brazilian’s practitioners feel slightly more trained to deal
with ethical issues related to organisational communication on social media. This may be tied with the need to have a PR degree to
become a practitioner in Brazil.
Both samples believed practitioners to be the ones responsible for organisation’s ethical conduct on social media and that PR
should be the ones to train and guide employees and management (“ethical guardians” – L’Etang, 2004). There was also a strong
agreement about the need for each organisation to publish a policy to regulate social media communication. Social media policies
would establish governance mechanisms for content publishing, accountability and responsibility assignment, somehow normalizing
the online presence of the organisation (Motion et al., 2016; p. 25).
Both samples tend to agree that social media provide the PR professional with an opportunity to elevate its status within the

6
S.P. Sebastião et al. Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 1
Statements about general practice/normative standpoint.

Statements/General Brazil Portugal t-test

N M SD N M SD

I’m well trained to deal with ethical issues relating to organisational communication on social 44 4.2 0.82 100 3.99 0.92 t(91) = 1.99,
media. p < 0.17
PR practitioners should take responsibility for the organisation’s ethical conduct on social media: 44 4.5 0.59 100 4.43 0.83 t(113) = 1.98,
train and guide employees and management. p < 0.57
Social media have improved PR practitioners’ control over the distribution of messages on behalf 44 3.41 1.11 100 3.29 1.23 t(91) = 1.99,
of the organisation/s they serve. p < 0.57
Social media provide PR with an opportunity to elevate its status within the organisation and 44 3.57 0.87 100 3.69 0.85 t(80) = 1.99,
inspire management’s socially responsible and ethical decisions. p < 0.44
Each organisation should publish a policy to instruct employees on their communication on 44 4.52 0.82 100 4.64 0.75 t(76) = 1.99,
social media. p < 0.42

organisation and inspire management’s socially responsible and ethical decisions. While most Brazilian subjects perceived social
media as having improved PRs’ control over the distribution of messages on behalf of the organisation(s) they serve; Portuguese
queried practitioners are divided on the matter, answers were distributed between disagreement (28), agreement (31) and no opinion
(16). However the results of the t-test statistics indicated that no significant differences occurred between Portugal and Brazil
answers: t(91) = 1.99, p < 0.57.
Comparing those results with Toledano and Avidar’s (2016), Portuguese PRs perceptions seem closer to the more ethical
perceptions of the NZ practitioners, who also revealed split opinion about the control over the distribution of messages using social
media.
As for the transparency axis (Table 2), on the one hand, respondents strongly agree they should whistle-blow corruption putting
public interest first. On the other hand, disclosing information about paid contents, rewards and sponsorship is perceived as
mandatory by both enquired PRs samples in online public relations practices. Writing comments on social media without disclosing
one’s identity or payments are unethical practices recognized and refuted by the questioned samples, as well as by the ones analysed
by Toledano and Avidar (2016). Coherently, using a disclaimer (ethical tool) is supported by samples in both studies.
There are some divided opinions regarding the creation of activist groups to disclose convenient stories for an organisation.
Portuguese practitioners tend to disagree (61) with this unethical practice, but a significant number has no opinion (26) and some
even agree (12) on the designated matter. Also, few Brazilian practitioners have a positive perception about this practice (6). Then
again, the results of the t-test statistics indicated that no significant differences occurred between Portugal and Brazil [t(80) = 1.99,
p > 0.75].
Comparing with Toledano and Avidar’s (2016), these answers are closer to the less ethical attitudes of Israeli practitioners than to
the New Zealander ones, since those have vehemently refused this unethical practice.
Authenticity seems to be the axis of ethical practices (RQ2) that raises split opinions among respondents. A significant number of
Portuguese practitioners (43) find it difficult to write weblogs on behalf of CEOs. Also the Portuguese sample tends to disagree with
the unethical practice of writing content online without identifying themselves (63), but, and as stated by Toledano and Avidar
(2016, p. 166) “blogging on behalf of others might have become common practice”.
Brazilian respondents (30) do not find it difficult to write on behalf of CEOs, evidencing that authentic voices on social media are
not really important for them. They also tend to disagree or not have an opinion (22) about the unethical practices of anonymous or
deceptive online commenting.
Still, on the subject of authenticity statements the results of the t-test statistics indicated that no significant differences occurred
between Portugal and Brazil (see Table 3).
As for statements about respect and truthfulness for competition and for the business market (see Table 4), both samples agree
with bloggers’ payment to deliver the organisation’s messages since it has become a common practice. However, and as seen in

Table 2
Statements about transparent practices.

Statements/Transparency Brazil Portugal t-test

N M SD N M SD

A PR practitioner who knows about corruption in the organisation should act as “whistle- 44 3.75 1.16 100 4.11 1.05 t(75) = 1.99,
blower” and put the public interest first. p < 0.09
It is ok for PR practitioners to write comments on social media without a disclaimer about the 44 2.09 0.96 100 2.16 1.15 t(98) = 1.99,
sponsor that paid them to do it. p < 0.71
Best practice requires a disclaimer by all bloggers and PR practitioners if they are paid or 44 4 0.96 100 4.01 1.08 t(92) = 1.99,
rewarded by an organisation for delivering a specific message. p > 0.91
I would create an activist group to support my employer or client’s interests and pay them to post 44 2.14 1.11 100 2.19 1.08 t(80) = 1.99,
our side of the story on social media. p > 0.75

7
S.P. Sebastião et al. Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 3
Statements about authenticity.

Statements/Authenticity Brazil Portugal t-test

N M SD N M SD

I find it difficult to write weblogs on behalf of CEOs because social media requires authentic 44 2.41 1.21 100 3.12 1.26 t(85) = 1.99, p > 0
voices.
It is ok for PR to write comments on social media without identifying their real identity. 44 2.5 1.05 100 2.29 1.13 t(88) = 1.99, p < 0.30

Table 2, respondents agree that “best practice requires a disclaimer by all bloggers and PRs if they are paid or rewarded by an
organisation for delivering a specific message”. So, although bloggers’ payment can be classified as an unethical practice (Jensen,
2011), PRs from Brazil and Portugal tend to perceive it as acceptable, casting doubt on the ability of these professionals to be “ethical
guardians” (L’Etang, 2004). Comparing with Toledano and Avidar’s (2016) results, practitioners from New Zealand tend to refuse this
practice. Again, our results are closer to the less ethical attitudes of Israeli practitioners inquired by our colleagues.
As for payments to social media experts for distributing rumours and negative messages about competitors, both enquired samples
strongly disagree with this unethical practice, revealing respect for competition and consideration for truthfulness. Nevertheless, this
was perhaps the statement most prone to the desirability bias.

6. Discussion and conclusions

Ethical behaviour is sustained as a necessary condition for trusting relationships and must be extended to the presence of
organisations in the online realm and the associated use of online media self-presenting activities (Gilpin, 2010). There are several
ethical principles, as explored in the literature review. This article pinpoints the ethical dimensions of transparency tied to full
disclosure of source identity, interest and benefice; truthfulness of information and practice; authenticity of voices avoiding deception
and respect for publics and markets (Jensen, 2011). These dimensions were analysed in the context of two countries with different
levels of transparency, human freedoms and internet use. While Portuguese people are increasingly familiar with social networks and
digital platforms; Brazilian people reveal persistent levels of economic, demographic and educational digital divide. Despite the
positive evolution, the percentage of Brazilians who do not use the internet is still vast.
Despite possible conclusions of this study, Portugal and Brazil are close with regard to power distance cultural value (The
Hofstede Centre, s/d) and this may explain similar responses to questions about ethics in both countries. The two countries show
different levels of transparency and human freedoms; however none is high on any international scale of democracy and transparency
though Brazil is consistently lower than Portugal. The main gap was identified on the freedom of press ranking system. Thus, results
are compared with Toledano and Avidar’s (2016) that serve as benchmark since they show data from New Zealand, a country that
performs high on the international scales concerned (1st The Fraser Institute Index of Human Freedom 2012/2013; 2nd The
Corruption Perceptions Index of Transparency International and 9th The 2014 World Press Freedom Index).
Do these environments affect public relations practitioners’ attitudes regarding ethical issues on social media? Or do more
respectful human freedoms and transparency environments inspire public relations professionals towards more ethical attitudes?
(RQ1)
Results show no significant differences between practitioners from Portugal and Brazil. From the normative perspective, it is
possible to conclude that with regard to organisational communication on social media, inquired PRs think about themselves as
“ethical guardians” (L’Etang, 2004, 2011). Pursuant to the excellence theory (Grunig, 1992), public relation professionals are dialogic
when relationships are maintained and improved, by observing ethical practices. It is, moreover assumed, that these would help to
increase the social and organisational recognition of the profession, even more when professionals are engaged on internet-related
public relations activities. So, and as stated by Valentini (2015), PRs are responsible for social media content and should assess the
nature of organisations’ social media practices in order to provide ethical advice and training to the organisations they serve.
Considering the wavering differences between the results from both samples, it is possible to confirm Toledano and Avidar’s
(2016) report that unethical public relations acceptance (on an attitudinal basis) occurs in more corrupt societies, since results are
closer to the less ethical attitudes of Israeli practitioners responses. Israel’s performances on the international scales concerned are
closer to Portugal (37th The Corruption Perceptions Index of Transparency International) and Brazil (96th The 2014 World Press

Table 4
Statements about truthfulness and respect for competition.

Statements/truthfulness and respect Brazil Portugal t-test

n M SD n M SD

It is ok to pay bloggers to deliver the organisation or client’s messages as everybody is doing it 44 3.23 1.26 100 3.25 1.21 t(85) = 1.99, p > 0
anyway.
It is ok to pay social media experts for distributing rumours and negative messages about 44 1.36 0.65 100 1.52 0.85 t(106) = 1.98,
organisations that compete with my employer or client. p > 0.20

8
S.P. Sebastião et al. Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Freedom Index) than from New Zealand. Portuguese and Brazilian samples show similar results on the power distance variable, but
are far from this variable result both from Israel (13) and New Zealand (22).
The study highlights no practitioners’ attitudinal or perceptive divergence with regard to knowledge and respect for professional
ethical standards. This conclusion may also be related to the profession itself. As mentioned by Gonçalves (2012), public relations
practitioners in Latin countries are connoted with soft propaganda and public opinion manipulation. Personal influence, one way
communication and public relations models are the ones prevailing. As such, results from this study may confirm L’Etang’s (2004,
2011) reservations about the legitimacy of PRs as “ethical guardians” since they may neither have the ability nor the authority to
make moral judgements, given the reputation of the practice.
This faltering observation can also sustain why main divergences were found on issues as the ethical dimension of authenticity
(RQ2). Authenticity raises doubts on Brazilian PRs and split opinions among Portuguese ones. As noted by Motion, Heath, and Leitch
(2016), in social media, authenticity may just be seen as countertrend to anonymity, and employing professional assistance to deliver
social media message and content under a public figure or brand profile may be acceptable, since social media users are aware that
accounts are promotional and assistance is needed to ensure that social media profiles are updated.
Also, total transparency is not vehemently defended in both countries. Probably due to fear of losing control over information,
content interest or public debate about the organisation and its reputation, situations in which “participatory culture” and
“collaborative practices” of social media may promote (Motion et al., 2016; pp. 6–7). Total transparency may also deliver sensitive
business information to competition and this is a situation organisations tend to avoid.
Several limitations can be pointed to this study. Samples are short due to professionals’ reluctance and unwillingness to cooperate.
Moreover, one recognizes ethics is a very sensitive topic, prone to social desirability bias. However, faltering results could be
complemented with some in-depth interviews (qualitative approach) in order to understand some items of higher divisions among
respondents, and in particular the ones linked to authenticity and transparency.
Finally and as we have used Toledano and Avidar’s (2016) method and questionnaire statements some items related to content
production may be missing. For example, online video platforms and their ethical dilemmas raised by paid and sponsored content;
authors rights and so on. These may be considered in future research designs on the subject matter approached in this article.
Despite limitations to this research, some take away thoughts have arisen. First, practitioners need more training in matters of
ethics. Perhaps more dialogue with the academia is needed to define essentials and guidelines on educational contents in the field of
ethics. Second, in order to elicit ethical principles from the several codes of ethics and conduct, explanations and examples of ethical
and unethical practices must be given. Ethics must go beyond philosophical and moral statements and become an applied instrument.
Third, and maybe the biggest dead-lock of ethics in communication and public relations practices, “clients” must be drawn into these
matters. Sometimes unethical practices are required by consultancy’s clients or by the dominant coalition of the organizations they
work in. If the market acts unethically (whether they are aware of it or not) it becomes very difficult for an unempowered practitioner
to go against it.

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by Portuguese national funds through FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, under project «PEst-
OE/CJP/UI0713/2013».

References

ABRACOM (n/a). Apresentação (Presentation). Retrieved from http://www1.abracom.org.br/cms/opencms/abracom/pt/quemsomos/index.html.

Bowen, S. A., Hung-Baesecke, C.-J. F., & Chen, Y.-R. R. (2016). Ethics as a precursor to organisation-public relationships: Building trust before and during the OPR
model. Cogent Social Sciences, 2(1), 19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1141467.
Bowen, S. (October, 30 2007). Ethics and Public Relations. Institute for Public Relations. Retrieved from http://www.instituteforpr.org/ethics-and-public-relations/.
Bowen, S. A. (2013a). Using classical social media cases to distil ethical guidelines for digital engagement. Journals of Mass Media Ethics: Exploring Questions of Media
Morality, 28(2), 119–133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08900523.2013.793523.
Bowen, S. A. (2013b). Ethics of public relations. In (2nd ed.). R. L. Heath (Vol. Ed.), Encyclopaedia of public relations. Vol. 1, (pp. 304–306). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brown, R. (2009). Public relations and the social web: Using social media and web 2.0 in communications. London/Philadelphia: Kogan Page.
Cheney, G., Munshi, D., May, S., & Ortiz, E. (2011). Encountering communication ethics in the contemporary world. Principles, people, and contexts. In G. Cheney, S.
May, & D. Munshi (Eds.), The handbook of communication ethics (pp. 1–11). New York: Routledge.
Diga, M., & Kelleher, T. (2009). Social media use, perceptions of decision-making power, and public relations roles. Public Relations Review, 35(4), 440–442. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.07.003.
Duhé, S. (2015). An overview of new media research in public relations journals from 1981 to 2014. Public Relations Review, 41(2), 153–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.pubrev.2014.11.002.
Einwiller, S. A., & Steilen, S. (2015). Handling compaints on social network sites—An analysis of complaints and compaint responses on Facebook and Twitter pages of
large US companies. Public Relations Review, 41(2), 195–204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.11.012.
Ess, C. (2011). Ethical dimensions of new technology/media. In G. Cheney, S. May, & D. Munshi (Eds.), The handbook of communication ethics (pp. 204–220). New York:
Routledge.
Fraser Institute (January 8, 2013). Towards a Worldwide Index of Human Freedom. Accessed at: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/research/towards-a-worldwide-
index-of-human-freedom (10 December 2015).
Fuchs, C. (2014). Social Media: A critical introduction. Los Angeles/London: Sage.
Gilpin, D. (2010). Organisational image construction in a fragmented online media environment. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22(3), 265–287. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/10627261003614393.
GlobalWebIndex (2014). Penetration of leading social networks in Brazil as of 4th quarter 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.statista.com/statistics/284424/brazil-social-
network-penetration/ (10 December 2015).
Goldstraw, D. (2015). Can PR practitioners build positive journalist relationships via social media? In E. Ordeix, V. Carayol, & R. Tench (Eds.), Public relations, values
and cultural identity (pp. 339–359). Brussels: Peter Lang.
Gonçalves, G. (2007). Ética das relações públicas. a falta de responsabilidade social nos Códigos Éticos de relações Públicas (Public relations ethics. The lack of social

9
S.P. Sebastião et al. Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

responsibility in public relations ethic codes). Ethics of society. Ethics of Communication, . Paris: IX International Association for Media and Communication Research
(IAMCR) Congress, 1–25.
Gonçalves, G. (2012). A identidade e a imagem das relações públicas em Portugal (The identity and image of Public Relations in Portugal). IBER: International Business
and Economics Review, 3, 198–207.
Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1992). Models of public relations and communication. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management
(pp. 285–326). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
In Grunig, J. E. (Ed.), (1992). Excellence in public relations and communication management. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Heath, R. L. (2006). Onward into more fog: Thoughts on public relations' research directions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(2), 93–114.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related values. Newbury Park: Sage.
Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s consequences. comparing values, behaviours, institutions and organisations across nations(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks/CA: Sage Publications.
Hyde, M. J. (2011). Ethics, rhetoric, and discourse. In G. Cheney, S. May, & D. Munshi (Eds.), The handbook of communication ethics (pp. 31–44). New York: Routledge.
Internet World Stats (2015). Internet use in Europe. Accessed at: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats4.htm#europe (November 06, 2015).
Jensen, R. (2011). Blogala, sponsored posts, and the ethics of blogging. In B. E. Drushel, & K. German (Eds.), The ethics of emerging media: Information, social norms, and
new media technologies (pp. 213–229). New York: Continuum.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53, 59–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003.
Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the world wide web. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0363-8111(99)80143-X.
Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 21–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(02)
00108-X.
Kent, M. L., Taylor, M., & White, W. (2003). The relationship between website design and organisational responsiveness to stakeholders. Public Relations Review, 29(1),
66–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0363-8111(02)00194-7.
Kent, M. L. (2008). Critical analysis of blogging in public relations. Public Relations Review, 34, 32–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2007.12.001.
Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media.
Business Horizons, 54, 241–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.005.
Kim, S., Park, J.-H., & Wertz, E. K. (2010). Expectation gaps between stakeholders and web-based corporate public relations efforts: Focusing on Fortune 500 corporate
websites. Public Relations Review, 36, 215–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.04.001.
L’Etang, J. (2004). The myth of the ethical guardian: An examination of its origins, potency and illusions. Journal of Communication Management, 8(1), 53–67. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/13632540410807547.
L’Etang, J. (2011). Public Relations and Marketing. Ethical issues and professional practice in society. In G. Cheney, S. May, & D. Munshi (Eds.), The handbook of
communication ethics (pp. 221–240). New York: Routledge.
Lahav, T., & Roth-Cohen, O. (2016). The changing blogosphere and its impact on public relations practice and professional ethics: The Israeli case. Public Relations
Review, 42(5), 929–931. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.08.006 Advance Online Publication.
Macnamara, J., & Zerfass, A. (2012). Social media communication in organisations: The challenges of balancing openness, strategy, and management. International
Journal of Strategic Communication, 6, 287–308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2012.711402.
McAllister-Spooner, S. M. (2009). Fulfilling the dialogic promise: A ten year reflective survey on dialogic internet principles. Public Relations Review, 35(3), 320–322.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.03.008.
Men, L. R., & Tsai, W.-H. S. (2012). How companies cultivate relationships with publics on social network sites: Evidence from China and the United States. Public
Relations Review, 38, 723–730. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.10.006.
Moloney, K. (2000). Rethinking public relations: PR, propaganda and democracy(2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Motion, J., Heath, R. L., & Leitch, S. (2016). Social media and public relations, fake friends and powerful publics. Oxon/New York: Routledge.
Osch, W. V., & Coursaris, C. K. (2014). Social media research: An assessment of the domain’s productivity and intellectual evolution. Communication Monographs, 81(3),
1–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2014.921720.
Osch, W. V., & Coursaris, C. K. (2015). A meta-analysis of theories and topics in social media research. 48th Hawaii International conference on system sciences,
1668–1675. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/hicss.2015.201.
Pesquisa Brazileira de Mídia (PBM) (2015). Hábitos de consumo de mídia pela população Brazileira (Brazilians’ Habits of Consumption). Accessed at: http://www.secom.
gov.br/ (10 December 2015).
Phillips, D., & Young, P. (2009). Online public relations(2nd ed.). London, UK: Kogan Pag CIPRe.
Reporters Without Borders (2015). 2015 World Press Freedom Index Accessed at: http://index.rsf.org (4 April 2016).
Rogers, E. M. (1962/2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed). New York: Free Press.
Sebastião, S. P., & Azevedo, C. (2014). Associativismo e Ordem dos Consultores de Comunicação: vantagens e debilidades (Associations and the Order of
Communication Consultants: Strengths and weaknesses). Revista Internacional de Relaciones Públicas, 4(7), 39–52 Retrieved from: http://revistarelacionespublicas.
uma.es/index.php/revrrpp/article/view/256 (4 April 2016).
Tench, R., Zerfass, A., Verhoeven, P., Vercic, D., Moreno, A., & Okay, A. (2013). Communication Management Competencies for European Practitioners. Retrieved from
European Communication Professionals Skills and Innovation Programme (ECOPSI): http://www.ecopsi.org.uk/ (4 April 2016).
The Hofstede Centre (n/a). Portugal. Accessed at: http://geert-hofstede.com/portugal.html (4 April 2016).
The Hofstede Centre (n/a). Brazil. Accessed at: http://geert-hofstede.com/brazil.html (4 April 2016).
Toledano, M., & Avidar, R. (2016). Public relations, ethics, and social media: A cross-national study of PR practitioners. Public Relations Review, 42(1), 161–169. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.11.012.
Toledano, M., & Wolland, L. (2011). Ethics 2.0: Social media implications for professional communicators. Ethical Space: The International Journal of Communication
Ethics, 8(3/4), 43–52.
Transparency International (2014). Corruption Perceptions Index. Accessed at: https://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/infographic/compare (4 April 2016).
Treem, J. W., & Leonardi, P. M. (2012). Social media use in organisations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association.
Communication Yearbook, 36, 143–189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2013.1167913.
Vásquez, I., & Štumberger, T. (2012). An index of freedom in the world. In F. McMahon (Ed.), Towards a worldwide index of human freedom (pp. 55–106). Fraser
Institute Retrieved from: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/towards-a-worldwide-index-of-
human-freedom.pdf (4 April 2016).
Valentini, C. (2015). Is using social media good for the public relations profession? A critical reflection. Public Relations Review, 41(2), 170–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.pubrev.2014.11.009.
Vercic, D., Vercic, A. T., & Sriramesh, K. (2014). Looking for digital in public relations. Public Relations Review, 41, 142–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.
12.002.
Wright, D. K., & Hinson, M. D. (2015). Examining social and emerging media use in public relations practice: A ten-year longitudinal analysis. Public Relations Journal,
9(2), 1–26 Retrieved from https://www.prsa.org/Intelligence/PRJournal/Documents/2015v09n02WrightHinson.pdf (4 April 2016).
Wright, D. K. (2001). The magic communication machine: Examining the internet’s impact on public relations, journalism, and the public. Gainesville, FL: The Institute for
Public Relations.
Ye, L., & Ki, E.-J. (2012). The status of online public relations research: An analysis of published articles in 1992–2009. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(5),
409–434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2012.723277.
Young, P. M. (2015). A history of the future: Concepts for telling the story of online PR. In E. Ordeix, V. Carayol, & R. Tench (Eds.), Public relations, values and cultural
identity (pp. 31–56). Brussels: Peter Lang.
Zerfass, A., Tench, R., Vercic, D., Verhoeven, P., & Moreno, A. (2014). European communication monitor 2014. Excellence in strategic communication—Key issues,
leadership, gender and mobile media. Results of a survey in 42 countries. Brussels: EACD/EUPRERA.

10