Ethics in comms is nothing new, and most people understand why it matters. Ethics shapes how we communicate, who we work with, and how we are perceived. But trust is the part that’s changed.
by Helena Hornby
People are more informed, more connected, and more willing to hold institutions to account than they were even five years ago. Social media has made it easier to ask awkward questions, to spot contradictions, and to share them widely. And that accountability doesn't stop at the services you deliver. Increasingly, it extends to who you choose to work with.
We're seeing communities, staff, and stakeholders like elected members take a closer interest in the suppliers public sector organisations use. Not every organisation, not every time. But the question is being asked more often: do the people we're giving public money to share our values?
It's not always simple
I’ve worked in the public sector long enough to know that supplier decisions are rarely straightforward. Procurement rules, contract cycles, migration costs, and team capacity all shape what's possible. For many organisations right now, with budgets squeezed harder than ever, cost is simply the dominant factor. That's understandable.
But I do think the question is worth asking, even when you can't always act on the answer, because the standard we’re held to has shifted.
Technology suppliers have never really been neutral infrastructure, even if we’ve treated them that way. They operate in a political, ethical, and reputational space; what they do and how they behave can reflect on the organisations that use them. That’s always been true, it’s just harder to ignore now. I know I didn't always factor it in in the past. But it's worth being informed and having a position on the ethics of who you work with, even if the final decision isn't yours to make.
Procurement as a values statement
When you hand over public money to a supplier, you're not just buying a service. You're entering into a relationship that your communities can see. And they're paying more attention than they used to.
It doesn't have to be dramatic. It might be a staff member asking why you're using a platform that contradicts your equality commitments. A scrutiny panel questioning a supplier's labour practices. A community member spotting that the company behind your digital services has clients that don't sit well with your stated values. These conversations are happening, and they're worth being ready for.
Some questions worth asking
I'm not saying there's a neat way to address all of this. Goodness knows the procurement checklist is long enough as it is! But here are some questions I think are worth sitting with when you're evaluating suppliers:
Do they actually understand your sector? Not as a sales pitch, but genuinely. Do they know what it's like to work within democratic accountability, tight budgets, and high public scrutiny? Or are you just another revenue stream?
What's their approach to data and privacy? You're handling citizen data. The standards you hold yourself to need to extend to who you share that data with.
Who else do they work with? Transparency about client bases matters. If a supplier is cagey about who they serve, that's worth noting.
How do they behave when things go wrong? A supplier's response to criticism tells you more about their values than any mission statement.
Do they contribute to the sector, or just extract from it? There's a difference between a supplier who shows up when there's a contract to win, and one that invests in sector knowledge, community, and genuine partnership.
And yes, what do they cost? But at what cost to your ethics? Cost has to be on the list, and in the current climate it's often the deciding factor. That's understandable. But it's worth thinking about cost in the round. A slightly cheaper contract today could look very different if something comes to light further down the line. Reputational damage, a holding statement drafted at short notice, questions at scrutiny, community trust eroded - none of that is free. The short-term saving and the long-term risk aren't always as far apart as they look on a procurement spreadsheet. Ethics and value aren't mutually exclusive, but they need to be weighed together honestly.
Where we stand
I should be transparent: I work for Orlo, a technology supplier to the public sector. So I have a stake in this conversation. But I think that makes it more important to be honest, not less.
Orlo is built for the public sector, not adapted for it. Our focus is entirely on helping local government, police forces, NHS trusts, housing associations, and many others, build stronger connections with their communities. The outcomes that matter to us are the outcomes that matter to you: safer communities, better health, improved housing, supported families.
We hold ourselves to the security and data standards public sector organisations require. We try to show up as genuine participants in sector conversations, not just when there's something to sell.
Practising what we preach
But I also want to be honest about the complexity we navigate as a business.
The social media landscape itself is under intense scrutiny right now. The debate around social media and young people, the Online Safety Act, concerns about algorithmic transparency, platforms dropping fact-checking, growing evidence around people’s mental health - these aren't fringe conversations anymore. They're in front of select committees, in the national press, and increasingly in the inbox of public sector comms teams who are trying to figure out what responsible use of these platforms actually looks like for their organisations.
Which means that as a supplier of social media management tools, which are a key part of our community engagement platform, we can't claim to be above all of this. We have to make a decision about the platforms with which we integrate, so we're operating in this landscape too.
Our position is that public sector organisations need to be where their audiences are. For social listening especially, there are channels you simply can't ignore, whatever your view of the company behind them. What's being said there matters, and comms teams need to be able to hear it and respond.
We're transparent with our customers about the platforms we work with and why. We support them in making their own decisions about whether to use a channel actively, and we won't pretend those questions are simple. No social media provider is free from scrutiny and divided opinion.
But we think giving organisations choice, visibility, and honest conversation is more responsible than either making that decision for them or pretending the tension doesn't exist.
This is, I think, what ethical supplier behaviour actually looks like in practice. Not perfection; transparency about trade-offs, genuine respect for your customers' autonomy, and a willingness to have the difficult conversation rather than avoid it.
That's the standard we're trying to hold ourselves to, and we think you should expect it of any supplier you work with, because we know how much public perception matters to the communities you serve.
If you're evaluating suppliers at the moment, I hope some of these thoughts and questions are useful.
Helena Hornby is Head of Community Collaboration at Orlo. With many years' experience in public sector communications, she works to ensure Orlo stays closely connected to the realities of public sector communication and community engagement.
*Sign up for the comms2point0 eMag*
The comms2point0 eMag features exclusive new content, free give-aways, special offers, first dibs on new events and much, much more.
Sound good? Join over 4.2k other comms people who have subscribed. You can sign up to it right here
AND you can join the comms2point0 comms lifetime WhatsApp group here.
