Recent Post

Searching...
July 23, 2013

Essay on Marketing Ethics

Nature and Scope of Marketing Ethics

INTRODUCTION
            Marketing ethics is viewed as important because of marketing’s interface with many diverse stakeholders. Marketing is a key functional area in the business organization that provides a visible interface with not only customers, but other stakeholders such as the media, investors, regulatory agencies, channel members, trade associations, as well as others. It is important when addressing marketing ethics to recognize that it should be examined from an individual, organizational, and societal perspective. Examining marketing ethics from a narrow issue perspective does not provide foundational background that provides a complete understanding of the domain of marketing ethics. The purpose of this chapter is to define, examine the nature and scope, identify issues, provide a decision-making framework, and trace the historical development of marketing ethics from a practice and academic perspective.

DEFINITION OF MARKETING ETHICS
            Ethics has been termed the study and philosophy of human conduct, with an emphasis on the determination of right and wrong. For marketers, ethics in the workplace refers to rules (standards, principles) governing the conduct of organizational members and the consequences of marketing decisions (Ferrell, 2005). Therefore, ethical marketing from a normative perspective approach is defined as “practices that emphasize transparent, trustworthy, and responsible personal and organizational marketing policies and actions that exhibit integrity as well as fairness to consumers and other stakeholders (Murphy, Laczniak, Bowie and Klein, 2005). Marketing ethics focuses on principles and standards that define acceptable marketing conduct, as determined by various stakeholders and the organization responsible for marketing activities. While many of the basic principles have been codified as laws and regulations to require marketers to conform to society’s expectations of conduct, marketing ethics goes beyond legal and regulatory issues. Ethical marketing practices and principles are core building blocks in establishing trust, which help build long-term marketing relationships. In addition, the boundary-spanning nature of marketing (i.e. sales, advertising, and distribution) presents many of the ethical issues faced in business today.
            Both marketing practitioners and marketing professors approach ethics from different perspectives. For example, one perspective is that ethics is about being a moral individual and that personal values and moral philosophies are the key to ethical decisions in marketing. Virtues such as honesty, fairness, responsibility, and citizenship are assumed to be values that can guide complex marketing decisions in the context of an organization. On the other hand, approaching ethics from an organizational perspective assumes that establishing organizational values, codes, and training is necessary to provide consistent and shared approaches to making ethical decisions (Ferrell and Ferrell, 2005).

THE DOMAIN OF MARKETING ETHICS
Substantive Domain
            The relationship between a customer and an organization exists because of mutual expectations built on trust, good faith, and fair dealing in their interaction. In fact, there is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and performance cannot simply be a matter of the firm’s own discretion (Ferrell, 2004). Not only is this an ethical requirement but it has been legally enforced in some states. The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is to enforce the contract or transaction in a manner consistent with the parties’ reasonable expectations (1998 WL 1991608 Mich. App.) Courts may impose “implied duties of good faith” in marketing exchanges (Gundlach and Murphy, 1993). This obligation of good faith appears to be an institutional or legal approach to enforcing ethical conduct in marketing.
            Marketing ethics not only requires an attempt to make ethical decisions, but also to avoid the unintended consequences of marketing activities. This requires consideration of key stakeholders and their relevant interests (Fry and Polonsky, 2004). Market orientation has been found as the key variable in the successful implementation of marketing strategies (Homburg, Krohmer, and Workman, 2004). But a successful marketing strategy has not always been associated with meeting the needs and demands of all stakeholders (Miller and Lewis, 1991). While Wal-Mart customers get low prices, Wal-Mart has many critics, including “organized labor, feminists, human rights activists, environmentalists, local businesses, and anti-sprawl activists…resulting in a growing negative consumer perception of Wal-Mart’s corporate citizenship” (Hemphill, 2005). Unfortunately, most approaches to market orientation select to elevate the interests of one stakeholder—the customer—over those of others (Ferrell, 2004). Now that Wal-Mart has focused mainly on customers and profits, a new direction should include all stakeholders that have an interest in the firm’s operations and conduct. There is evolving concern that organizations must focus on not just their customers, but also the important communities and groups that hold the firm accountable for its actions. A new emerging logic of marketing is that it exists to provide both social and economic processes, including a network of relationships to provide skills and knowledge to all stakeholders (Vargo and Lusch, 2004).
            This logic is captured in the new definition of marketing developed by the American Marketing Association (2004) which states that, “marketing is an organizational function and a set of processes for creating, communicating, and delivering value to customers and for managing customer relationships in ways that benefit the organization and its stakeholders”. This definition emphasizes the importance of delivering value and the responsibility of marketers to be able to create meaningful relationships that provide benefits to all relevant stakeholders. This is the first definition of marketing to include concern for stakeholders beyond the organization and customers.
            One difference between an ordinary decision and an ethical one is that accepted rules may not apply and the decision-maker must weigh values in a situation that he or she may not have faced before. Another difference is the amount of emphasis placed on a person’s values when making an ethical decision. An ethical dilemma evolves when the choice between alternative actions with moral content is unclear. Whether a specific behavior is right or wrong, ethical or unethical, is often determined by the concerned stakeholders and an individual’s personal ethics. Consequently, values, judgments, and complex situations all play a critical role in ethical decision making.
            Stakeholders designate the individuals, groups and communities that can directly or indirectly affect, or be affected by, a firm’s activities (Freeman, 1984). Marketing stakeholders can be viewed as both internal and external. Internal stakeholders include various departments, the board of directors, employees, and other interested internal parties. External stakeholders include competitors, advertising agencies, suppliers, regulators and others such as special interest groups (Miller and Lewis, 1991). The various relationships should be identified and interests understood. The complexity surrounding a determination of the effects of marketing transactions on all relevant stakeholders requires the identification of stakeholders in the exchange process (Fry and Polonsky, 2004). The re-conceptualization of the marketing concept based on a long-term, multiple stakeholder approach has also been suggested as a prescriptive model for organizational responsibility in marketing (Kimery and Rinehart, 1998). Based on these developments, there is a need for marketing to develop more of a stakeholder orientation rather than a narrow customer orientation. Stakeholder orientation in marketing goes beyond markets, competitors, and channel members to understanding and addressing all stakeholder demands. As a result, organizations are now under pressure to demonstrate initiatives that take a balanced perspective on stakeholder interests (Maignan, Ferrell, and Ferrell, 2005).

Historical Development of Marketing Ethics
            The historical background for marketing ethics is derived from early concerns during the turn of the 20th century concerning antitrust and consumer protection, especially adulterated food products. From the beginning of advertising, there have always been concerns about misrepresentations and purposeful deception of consumers. Frank Chapman Sharp started teaching a course in business ethics at the University of Wisconsin in 1913 and Sharp and Fox (1937) published a textbook on business ethics. The book was based on the concept of “fair service” and the authors stated “it will be possible to reduce our study of fair service to the principles of fair salesmanship” (Sharp and Fox, 1937). The book could have been titled ‘Marketing Ethics’ and had chapters on commercial coercion, let the buyer beware, the limits of persuasion, fair pricing, and the ethics of bargaining. Within the academic history of marketing, one of the first articles that appeared in the Journal of Marketing was an article by Charles F. Phillips (1939) entitled, “Some Theoretical Considerations Regarding Fair Trade Laws.” In this article, ethics was not directly addressed, but the impact of resale price maintenance on competition, especially channel members and customers, was addressed. The concern was that customers were not receiving information about prices and might assume that the quality of coffee offered by all stores was identical. Most academic publishing in the 1950s focused on issues such as fair trade, antitrust, advertising and pricing.
            During the 1960s American society turned to causes. An anti-business attitude developed as many critics attacked the vested interests that controlled the economic and political sides of society—the so-called military-industrial complex. The 1960s saw the decay of inner cities and the growth of ecological problems, such as pollution and the disposal of toxic and nuclear wastes. This period also witnessed the rise of consumerism—activities undertaken by independent individuals, groups, and organizations to protect their rights as consumers. In 1962 President John F. Kennedy delivered a “Special Message on Protecting the Consumer Interest,” in which he outlined four basic consumer rights: the right to safety, the right to be informed, the right to choose, and the right to be heard. These came to be known as the Consumers’ Bill of Rights (Ferrell, Fraedrich, and Ferrell, 2005).
            During this period of time, Robert Bartels (1967) contributed the first comprehensive model for ethics in marketing. This first academic conceptualization of the variables that influence marketing ethics decision making tried to determine the logical basis for marketers to determine what is right or wrong. It presented a schematic plan for analyzing the variables inherent in the ethics of decision making; and provided a framework for social and personal ethics in marketing decisions. The model did a good job in delineating variables that influence ethical decision making, including participants, cultural influencers, role expectations, and the complexity of ethical decision making. During this same period of time, Richard Farmer (1967) published an article, “Would You Want Your Daughter to Marry a Marketing Man?” that maintained that much of marketing is unethical and irrelevant. This article was received so well that in 1977, Farmer published an article entitled, “Would You Want Your Son to Marry a Marketing Lady?” and in 1987 published another article entitled, “Would You Want Your Granddaughter to Marry a Taiwanese Marketing Man?” The titles of these articles indicate that possibly marketing ethics was not considered a serious academic research area. The 1967 Bartels article provided a foundation for empirical research that followed in the 1970s.
            In the 1970s significant research was conducted to describe the beliefs of managers about marketing ethics. Carroll (1975) found that young managers would go along with their supervisors to show loyalty in dealing with matters related to judgments on morality. A follow-up study by Bowman (1976) supported these findings. Ferrell and Weaver (1978) provided insights into organizational relationships that influence marketing mangers’ ethical beliefs and behavior. The findings indicated that respondents perceived that the ethical standards of their peers and top management were lower than their own standards. Empirical research in the 1970s set the stage for frameworks that describe ethical decision making within the context of a marketing organization.
            The Ferrell and Gresham (1985) “A Contingency Framework for Understanding Ethical Decision Making in Marketing” emphasized the interaction of the individual and organization, including organization culture, co-workers, and opportunity to explain how ethical decisions are made. Most of the propositions in this model have been tested to provide a grounded understanding of ethical decision making. Hunt and Vitell (1986) “A General Theory of Marketing Ethics” is widely accepted and also provides an empirically grounded model to illustrate how ethical decision making occurs in an organization. Research followed in both marketing and management literature that helped test the Ferrell and Gresham and Hunt and Vitell models (Hunt and Vitell, 2005).
            In the 1980s, business academics and practitioners acknowledged business ethics as an important field of study. Industry developments, such as the Defense Industry Initiative on Business Ethics and Conduct, established a method for discussing best practices and working tactics to link organizational practice and policy to successful ethical compliance. In the 1990s, the government also provided support and rewards for ethics programs through the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations, approved by Congress in 1991. The Guidelines broke new ground by codifying into law incentives to reward organizations for taking action to prevent misconduct.  A special task force provided a report for updating and refining the guidelines in 2003 (United States Sentencing Commission, 2003). In 2005, a federal amendment to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines added oversight of ethics and compliance programs to the responsibilities of board of director positions. The amendment places more responsibility on board members to monitor and audit ethics programs, including marketing ethics.
            While the regulatory system was developing incentives for ethical conduct in organizations, Hunt, Wood and Chonko (1989) conducted research demonstrating a strong link between corporate ethical values and organizational commitment in marketing. Their corporate ethical values scale is widely used in organizational ethics research. Gundlach and Murphy (1993) build a normative framework for relational marketing exchanges based on the ethical exchange dimensions of trust, equality, responsibility, and commitment. They develop foundational understanding of the interrelationship of ethics and law in marketing exchange. This is a significant contribution because some observers take the perspective that the legal and ethical dimensions of exchange are independent. They conclude that ethical marketing exchanges require a managerial emphasis on ethical corporate culture, ethics training programs, and on ethical audits.
            Dunfee, Smith and Ross (1999) suggest the need for a normative framework for marketing ethics. Integrative Social Contract Theory (ISCT) links the decision-making process, multiple communities, hypernorms, and ethical judgments based on the dominant legitimate norms. This framework can be used for resolving ethical issues that arise among different communities and is significant because marketers frequently engage in boundary-spanning relationships and cross-cultural activities. This normative framework is significant to marketing because it emphasizes the exchange relationship between the firm and its stakeholders, including the right to exist and even prosper in society. This theory can be used to bridge normative and descriptive research in marketing ethics (Dunfee, Smith and Ross, 1999).
            As the 21st century arrived, ethics in the world of business became a major issue with scandals associated with Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Qwest, Sunbeam, and Arthur Andersen. While most of these scandals were associated with accounting fraud, in many cases companies such as Sunbeam, using inventory sales shifting strategies (buy and hold), relied on salespersons to help implement the fraud. These activities resulted in the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002, which is the most far-reaching change in organization control, corporate governance, and government oversight since the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. During this time (2000–2006) the Journal of Marketing published no articles with the word ethics in the title, but articles did appear dealing with ethical issues (Klein, Smith and John, 2004). There is still a need to continue both theory development and empirical testing of theories of ethical decision making in marketing.



Key Issues in Marketing Ethics[i]
            By its very nature, marketing ethics is controversial, and there is no universally accepted approach for resolving questions. Ethical issues address a problem, situation, or opportunity that requires an individual, group, or organization to choose among several actions that must be evaluated as right or wrong (Ferrell, Fraedrich, and Ferrell, 2005). The organization and stakeholders define marketing ethical issues that must be identified and resolved to build trust and effective relationships with stakeholders. Because marketing ethics sometimes deals with subjective moral choices, this requires decisions about the moral standards to apply and the definition of ethics issues (Murphy, Laczniak, Bowie and Klein, 2005). However, many groups in society, including government, are defining ethical and legal issues and proactive approaches to deal with these issues. For example, millions of blogs or personal web logs exist on the Internet without any formal code of ethics or regulation. Many firms, such as Audi, have their own blogs with many stakeholders requesting the formation of an ethics committee to create unified standards. Organizations are being asked to prevent and control misconduct by implementing ethical compliance programs. Ethics brings many rewards to organizations that nurture it, but managing ethics requires activity and attention on several levels—complying with the law, setting ethical standards, and dealing with the complex decisions related to trade-offs between the bottom line and ethical conduct. For example, the Securities and Exchange Commission is looking into retailers such as Saks, Inc. and other major department stores investigating collections or “charge backs” to manufacturers. Manufacturers often guarantee a certain profit margin or compensate retailers for items, which did not sell well. Saks may have improperly collected over $21 million from its vendors (D’Innocenzio, 2005).
            High ethical standards require both organizations and individuals to conform to sound moral principles. Fair Trade has emerged to link ethically minded consumers with marketers concerned with disadvantaged producers in developing nations. Starbucks works to treat coffee farmers fairly in their business relationships by paying premium prices, long-term contracts, affordable credit, direct purchasing, and investing in social projects in coffee communities (http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/StarbucksAndFairTrade.pdf; accessed July 5, 2005). However, general special factors must be considered when applying ethics to marketing. First, to survive, marketers must contribute to profits or other organizational objectives. Second, marketers must balance their desire for success against the needs and desires of society. Maintaining this balance often requires compromises or tradeoffs. To address these unique aspects, society has developed rules—both legal and implicit—to guide marketers in their efforts to reach their objectives in ways that do not harm individuals or society as a whole.
            External stakeholders interests, concerns, or dilemmas help trigger ethical issue intensity. For example, the National Do-Not Call Registry has tremendous impact on telemarketers’ business practices. Organizational culture (internal stakeholders) and individual moral philosophies and values influence the recognition of ethical issues and marketing ethics decisions. New Belguim Brewing Company, the third largest craft beer brewer in the United States, uses only wind energy and co-generation as well as a vigorous recycling initiative. In addition, the company practices open-book management. The decisions or outcomes are evaluated by both internal and external stakeholders.
            Marketing ethics relates to issues such as honesty and fairness, conflicts of interest, discrimination, privacy, and fraud. Government regulatory agencies and self-regulatory groups such as the Better Business Bureau have developed formal mechanisms to deal with ethical issues related to marketing. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforces consumer protection laws. Within this agency, the Bureau of Consumer Protection works to protect consumers against unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent practices. In addition to the FTC, other federal agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Federal Communications Commission try to assist consumers in addressing deceptive, fraudulent, or damaging conduct. At the state level, consumer protection statutes exist, and deceptive trade practices laws exist in most states. In New Jersey, the Attorney General’s office has filed a lawsuit against Blockbuster, Inc. for not properly disclosing terms associated with its “No More Late Fees” policy. Overdue rentals are automatically converted to sales on the eighth day after the due date. The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act could result in Blockbuster paying civil penalties of up to $10,000 for each violation (Merritt, 2005). These regulatory agencies help define many of the issues that should be an ethical concern for marketers. Examples of issues include marketing communications that are false and misleading, material misrepresentations in external and internal communications, and the use of telecommunications to deceive customers. Antitrust, deception in pricing, product liability, and marketing channel relationships all encompass ethical decisions.

A Framework for Understanding Ethical Decision Making In Marketing
            Ethical decision making in marketing parallels ethical decision making across all organizational domains. There is much overlap between marketing ethics and business ethics because the basic frameworks that describe ethical decision making in an organization include decisions that encompass marketing. In other words, within the context of an organization, there is an ethical component to business decisions, regardless of whether it is marketing or some other functional area component. External stakeholder interests, concerns or dilemmas help trigger ethical issue intensity. For example, PETA has encouraged KFC and other fast-food restaurants to make the ethical treatment of animals a priority. Organizational culture (internal stakeholders) and individual moral philosophies and values influence the recognition of ethical issues and marketing ethics decisions. The decisions or outcomes are evaluated by both internal and external stakeholders. While it is impossible to describe precisely how or why an individual or a work group may make a specific decision, we can generalize about average or typical behavior patterns within organizations.
            First, as previously discussed, marketing can identify the importance of stakeholders, stakeholder issues, and gather information to respond to significant individuals, groups, and communities. Next, in the decision-making process, marketers should identify the importance or relevance of a perceived issue– i.e., the intensity of the issue (Jones, 1991). The fast food industry is being pressured by government agencies, consumers, and special interest groups to offer healthier menu options, particularly for children. The intensity of a particular issue is likely to vary over time and among individuals and is influenced by the organizational culture, values and norms; the special characteristics of the situation; and the personal pressures weighing on the decision. McDonald’s restaurants were the targets of negative publicity associated with the release of the movie Super Size Me. In response, the company introduced more salads and healthful portions and alternatives. Individual factors are obviously important in the evaluation and resolution of ethical issues, and familiarity with principal, theoretical frameworks from the field of moral philosophy is helpful in determining ethical decision making in marketing (Murphy, Laczniak, Bowie, and Klein, 2005). Personal moral development and philosophy, organizational culture, and coworkers, determine why different people perceive issues with varying intensity (Robin, Reidenbach, and Forrest, 1996).
            The ethical climate of an organization is a significant element of organizational culture. Whereas a firm’s overall culture establishes ideals that guide a wide range of behaviors for members of the organization, its ethical climate focuses specifically on issues of right and wrong. The ethical climate is the organization’s character or conscience. Codes of conduct and ethics policies, top management’s actions on ethical issues, the values and moral development and philosophies of coworkers, and the opportunity for misconduct all contribute to an organization’s ethical climate. In fact, the ethical climate actually determines whether or not certain dilemmas are perceived as having an ethical intensity level that requires a decision.
            Opportunity usually relates to employees’ immediate job context—where they work, with whom they work, and the nature of the work. The specific work situation includes the motivational “carrots and sticks” that superiors can use to influence employee behavior. Pay raises, bonuses, and public recognition are carrots, or positive reinforcement, whereas reprimands, pay penalties, demotions, and even firings act as sticks, the negative reinforcement. For example, a salesperson who is publicly recognized and given a large bonus for making a valuable sale that he or she obtained through unethical tactics will probably be motivated to use unethical sales tactics in the future, even if such behavior goes against one’s personal value system. Research has shown that there is a general tendency to discipline top sales performers more leniently than poor sales performers for engaging in identical forms of unethical selling behavior (Bellizzi and Hasty, 2003). Neither a company policy stating that the behavior in question was unacceptable nor a repeated pattern of unethical behavior offsets the general tendency to favor the top sales performers. A superior sales record appears to induce more lenient forms of discipline despite managerial actions that are specifically instituted to produce more equal forms of discipline. Based on their research, Bellizzi and Hasty concluded that an opportunity exists for top sales performers to be more unethical than poor sales performers.
            In 2004, the American Marketing Association approved a new code of ethics entitled, “Ethical Norms and Values for Marketers” (see Appendix). The AMA code provides values which are assumptions about appropriate behavior, as well as norms that provide suggested behaviors. The AMA recognizes the diversity of marketing, and encourages members to access codes of ethics that address specific functional areas such as marketing research, direct selling, direct marketing, and advertising.


CONCLUSIONS
            Much progress has been made in advancing theory and research in marketing ethics. In addition, the practice of marketing has been elevated to higher levels of ethics from professional codes of conduct provided by the American Marketing Association, Direct Selling Association, Direct Marketing Association, Marketing Research Association, American Federation of Advertising and the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus. In addition, most corporations have developed comprehensive codes of conduct that address specific ethical risk areas in marketing practice. Recent regulatory changes that require boards of directors to be responsible for oversight on all ethics issues within an organization elevate the importance of marketing ethics. It is clear that marketing ethics is part of organizational responsibility and individuals cannot make independent decisions about appropriate conduct. There is recognition through academic research and regulatory initiatives that corporate culture plays a key role in improving marketing ethics.

State of the Field and Future Directions
            The latest description of the Hunt and Vitell (2005) theory of marketing ethics and their discussions of empirical tests of the theory provides an excellent framework for understanding the “why” questions about marketing ethics. The model shows why peoples’ ethical judgments differ in an organizational context. This theory, as well as Ferrell and Gresham (1985), provide directions for future empirical descriptive research in marketing ethics. While many researchers and managers believe that personal ethics determines organizational ethics, these frameworks and empirical research question this assumption. The role of corporate culture along with internal control of opportunity to engage in misconduct remains a key determinant of marketing ethics.
            The development of stakeholder theory and the importance of stakeholder orientation provide a new direction for integrating ethics into marketing decisions (Maignan, Ferrell and Ferrell, 2004). This perspective focuses on understanding and responding to important stakeholder groups that hold marketing accountable for its actions. This approach assumes that stakeholders are knowledgeable on key ethics issues and that the organization can respond in a manner that maintains marketing relationships.
            Stakeholder orientation has the potential to redefine the strategic concept of market orientation by including the interests of all stakeholders in marketing decisions. Marketing can be viewed more as a network of relationships providing skills and knowledge to all stakeholders (Vargo and Lusch, 2004). From this perspective marketing ethics would be an important part of the strategic planning process (Greenley, Hooley, Broderick, and Rudd, 2004).
            The role of normative theory (Dunfee, Smith and Ross, 1999) and cognitive moral development (Goolsby and Hunt, 1992) continues to be a part of the pluralistic approach used to discover and evaluate marketing ethics. Both descriptive and normative researchers agree that marketers do develop guidelines and rules for ethical conduct based on accepted norms and moral philosophies. Integrative Social Contract Theory (ISCT) (Dunfee, Smith and Ross, 1999), based on norms as the foundation of rules within communities, provides a direction for future research. Stakeholder theory can be linked with ISCT to examine multiple conflicting norms and discovery of norms that should have priority in marketing decisions.

Insights
            For most organizations, trade associations define minimum acceptable ethical behavior and the regulatory system provides the foundation for acceptable conduct in society. While acceptable ethical behavior is derived from the professional, cultural, industry, and organizational environments, individual behavior may differ based on ethical judgments (Hunt and Vitell, 2005). Marketing ethics remains a complex area to understand and offers the opportunity for research on many different dimensions that have been discussed in this section. Marketing will be under pressure from organizational efforts to institutionalize formal ethics programs in order to satisfy stakeholder demands. Both normative and descriptive understanding will be required to improve marketing ethics. There are many opportunities to contribute to the advancement of knowledge in this important area of marketing.




[i] Some of the material in this section has been adapted from LeClair, Ferrell, and Fraedrich (1998), with the permission of O’Collins Corporation.



APPENDIX

ETHICAL NORMS AND VALUES FOR MARKETERS
                                 

Preamble
The American Marketing Association commits itself to promoting the highest standard of professional ethical norms and values for its members. Norms are established standards of conduct that are expected and maintained by society and/or professional organizations. Values represent the collective conception of what people find desirable, important, and morally proper. Values serve as the criteria for evaluating the actions of others. Marketing practitioners must recognize that they not only serve their enterprises but also act as stewards of society in creating, facilitating, and executing the efficient and effective transactions that are part of the greater economy. In this role, marketers should embrace the highest ethical norms of practicing professionals and the ethical values implied by their responsibility toward stakeholders (e.g., customers, employees, investors, channel members, regulators and the host community).

General Norms
  1.  Marketers must do no harm. This means doing work for which they are appropriately trained or experienced so that they can actively add value to their organizations and customers. It also means adhering to all applicable laws and regulations and embodying high ethical standards in the choices they make.
     
  2.  Marketers must foster trust in the marketing system. This means that products are appropriate for their intended and promoted uses. It requires that marketing communications about goods and services are not intentionally deceptive or misleading. It suggests building relationships that provide for the equitable adjustment and/or redress of customer grievances. It implies striving for good faith and fair dealing so as to contribute toward the efficacy of the exchange process.
     
  3. Marketers must embrace, communicate, and practice the fundamental ethical values that will improve consumer confidence in the integrity of the marketing exchange system. These basic values are intentionally aspirational and include honesty, responsibility, fairness, respect, openness and citizenship.
     


Ethical Values

Honesty—to be truthful and forthright in our dealings with customers and stakeholders.
  •  We will tell the truth in all situations and at all times.
  •  We will offer products of value that do what we claim in our communications.
  •  We will stand behind our products if they fail to deliver their claimed benefits.
  •  We will honor our explicit and implicit commitments and promises.

Responsibility—to accept the consequences of our marketing decisions and strategies.
  •  We will make strenuous efforts to serve the needs of our customers.
  •  We will avoid using coercion with all stakeholders.
  •  We will acknowledge the social obligations to stakeholders that come with increased marketing and economic power.
  •  We will recognize our special commitments to economically vulnerable segments of the market such as children, the elderly and others who may be substantially disadvantaged.

Fairness—to try to balance justly the needs of the buyer with the interests of the seller.
  •  We will represent our products in a clear way in selling, advertising, and other forms of communication; this includes the avoidance of false, misleading, and deceptive promotion.
  •  We will reject manipulations and sales tactics that harm customer trust.
  •  We will not engage in price fixing, predatory pricing, price gouging, or “bait-and-switch” tactics.
  •  We will not knowingly participate in material conflicts of interest.

Respect—to acknowledge the basic human dignity of all stakeholders.
  •  We will value individual differences even as we avoid stereotyping customers or depicting demographic groups (e.g., gender, race, sexual orientation) in a negative or dehumanizing way in our promotions.
  •  We will listen to the needs of our customers and make all reasonable efforts to monitor and improve their satisfaction on an ongoing basis.
  •  We will make a special effort to understand suppliers, intermediaries, and distributors from other cultures.
  •  We will appropriately acknowledge the contributions of others, such as consultants, employees and coworkers, to our marketing endeavors.


Openness—to create transparency in our marketing operations.
  • We will strive to communicate clearly with all our constituencies.
  • We will accept constructive criticism from our customers and other stakeholders.
  • We will explain significant product or service risks, component substitutions or other foreseeable eventualities that could affect customers or their perception of the purchase decision.
  • We will fully disclose list prices and terms of financing as well as available price deals and adjustments.

Citizenship—to fulfill the economic, legal, philanthropic and societal responsibilities that serve stakeholders in a strategic manner.
  • We will strive to protect the natural environment in the execution of marketing campaigns.
  • We will give back to the community through volunteerism and charitable donations.
  • We will work to contribute to the overall betterment of marketing and its reputation.
  • We will encourage supply chain members to ensure that trade is fair for all participants, including producers in developing countries.

Implementation

Finally, we recognize that every industry sector and marketing subdiscipline (e.g., marketing research, e-commerce, direct selling, direct marketing, advertising) has its own specific ethical issues that require policies and commentary. An array of such codes can be accessed through links on the AMA Web site. We encourage all such groups to develop and/or refine their industry and discipline-specific codes of ethics to supplement these general norms and values.

REFERENCES

1998 WL 1991608 Mich. App.

American Marketing Association. “What Are The Definitions of Marketing and Marketing Research?,” available at http://www.marketingpower.com/content4620.php, accessed December 8, 2004.

Bartels, R. 1967. “A Model for Ethics in Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31, 20-26.

Bellizzi, J.A. and R.W. Hasty. 2003. “Supervising Unethical Sales Force Behavior: How Strong Is the Tendency to Treat Top Sales Performers Leniently?” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 43, 337-351.

Bowman, James S. 1976. “Managerial Ethics in Business and Government,” Business Horizons, October, 50.

Carroll, Archie B. 1975. “Managerial Ethics: A Post-Watergate View,” Business Horizons. April, 79.

D’Innocenzio, Anne. 2005. “Apparel Suppliers, Retailers Spar over Finances,” Coloradoan, April 24, E3.

Dunfee, T.W., N.C. Smith,  and W.T. Ross Jr. 1999. “Social Contracts and Marketing Ethics,” Journal of Marketing, 63 (3): 14-33.

Farmer, R.N. 1967. “Would You Want Your Daughter to Marry a Marketing Man?” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31,  1-3.

Farmer, R.N. 1977. “Would You Want Your Son to Marry a Marketing Lady?” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41,  15-18.

Farmer, R.N. 1987. “Would You Want Your Granddaughter to Marry a Taiwanese Marketing Man?” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51,  111-116.

Ferrell, O.C. 2004. “Business Ethics and Customer Stakeholders.” Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 18, No. 2,  126-129.

Ferrell, O.C. 2005. “A Framework for Understanding Organizational Ethics,” in Business Ethics: New Challenges for Business Schools and Corporate Leaders. R.A. Peterson and O.C. Ferrell, (eds.) Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe,  3-17.

Ferrell, O.C. and L. Ferrell. 2005. “Ethics and Marketing Education.” Marketing Education Review, forthcoming.

Ferrell, O.C., J. Fraedrich,  and L. Ferrell. 2005. Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Ferrell, O.C. and L.G. Gresham. 1985. “A Contingency Framework for Understanding Ethical Decision Making in Marketing.” Journal of Marketing, 49 (3).

Ferrell, O.C. and K. Mark Weaver. 1978. “Ethical Beliefs of Marketing Managers,” Journal of Marketing, 42 (3): 69-73.

Freeman, R.E. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.

Fry, M. and M.J. Polonsky. 2004. “Examining the Unintended Consequences of Marketing,” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57, 1303-1306.

Goolsby, J.R., and S.D. Hunt. 1992. “Cognitive Moral Development and Marketing.” Journal of Marketing 56 (1): 55-70.

Greenley, G.E., G.J. Hooley, A.J. Broderick, and J.M. Rudd.2004. “Strategic Planning Differences Among Different Multiple Stakeholder Orientation Profiles.” Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 12, 163-182.

Gundlach, G.T., and P.E. Murphy. 1993. “Ethical and Legal Foundations of Relational Marketing Exchanges.” Journal of Marketing, 57 (4): 35-47.

Hemphill, T.A. 2005. “Rejuvenating Wal-Mart’s Reputation.” Business Horizons, Vol. 48, 11-21.

Homburg, C., H. Krohmer,  and J.P. Workman. 2004. “A Strategy Implementation Perspective of Market Orientation,” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57, 1331-1340.

Hunt, Shelby D. and Scott Vitell. 2005. “Personal Moral Codes and the Hunt-Vitell Theory of Ethics,” in Business Ethics: New Challenges for Business Schools and Corporate Leaders, Robert A. Peterson and O.C. Ferrell (eds.) Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 18-37.

Hunt, S.D., V.R. Wood, and L.B. Chonko. 1989. “Corporate Ethical Values and Organizational Commitment in Marketing.” Journal of Marketing, 53 (3).

Hunt, S. D. and S. Vitell. 1986. “A General Theory of Marketing Ethics.” Journal of Macromarketing 6 (Spring): 5-15.

Jones, T.M. 1991. “Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations: An Issue-Contingent Model,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16, 366-395.

Kimery, K.M. and S.M. Rinehart. 1998. “Markets and Constituencies: An Alternative View of the Marketing Concept.” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 43, 117-124.

Klein, J.G., N.C. and John A. Smith. 2004. “Why We Boycott: Consumer Motivations for Boycott Participation.” Journal of Marketing, 68 (3): 92-110.

LeClair, D.T., O.C. Ferrell, and J.P. Fraedrich. 1998. Integrity Management: A Guide to Managing Legal and Ethical Issues in the Workplace. Tampa, Florida: University of Tampa Press.

Maignan, I., O.C. Ferrell, and L. Ferrell. 2005. “A Stakeholder Model for Implementing Social Responsibility in Marketing.” European Journal of Marketing, forthcoming.

Maignan, I., O.C. Ferrell, and L. Ferrell. 2004. “Corporate Social Responsibility and Marketing: An Integrative Framework.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32 (1): 3-19.

Merritt, Athena D. 2005. “N.J. AG Sues Blockbuster Over Ads.” Philadelphia Business Journal, February 18, 42.

Miller, R.L. and W.F. Lewis. 1991. “A Stakeholder Approach to Marketing Management Using the Value Exchange Models,” European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 25, No. 8, 55-68.

Murphy, P.E., G.R. Laczniak, N.E. Bowie, and T.A. Klein. 2005. Ethical Marketing, Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Prentice-Hall.


Phillips, C.F. 1939. “Some Theoretical Considerations Regarding Fair Trade Laws.” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 3, 242-250.

Robin, D.P., R.E. Reidenbach, and P.J. Forrest. 1996. “The Perceived Importance of an Ethical Issue as an Influence on the Ethical Decision-Marking of Ad Managers.” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 35, 17-29.

Sharp, F.C. and P.G. Fox. 1937. Business Ethics, New York: D. Appleton-Century Company.


United States Sentencing Commission (2003), “Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Group on the Organizational Sentencing Guidelines,” www.ussc.gov/corp/advgrprpt/advgrprpt.htm.

Vargo, S.L. and R.F. Lusch. 2004. “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing.” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 (January 2004): 1-17.



0 comments:

Post a Comment