article 4 paper be

8/22/2019 Article 4 Paper BE

1/10

The Ethics of Marketing Good Corporate ConductAuthor(s): Mary Lyn StollSource: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 41, No. 1/2, The Role of the Business Person in theFabric of Society (Nov. - Dec., 2002), pp. 121-129Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25074910 .

Accessed: 22/04/2013 01:26

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Springeris collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of Business Ethics.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springerhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25074910?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25074910?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer


2/10

The Ethics of MarketingGood Corporate Conduct Mary Lyn Stoll

ABSTRACT. Companies that contribute to charitable organizations rightly hope that their philanthropic work will also be good for the bottom line.

Marketers of good corporate conduct must be especially careful, however, to market such conduct ina morally acceptable fashion. Although marketerstypically engage in mild deception or take artisticlicense when marketing goods and services, these sortsof practices

are far more morally troublesome whenused to market good corporate conduct. I argue thatalthough mild deception is not substantially worrisome with respect to the marketing of most goodsand services, it is a far greater moral blunder to usesuch methods in the marketing of good corporatecharacter. These erode trust and demonstrate a lackof adequate respect for the moral good. In light ofthese concerns, I suggest that such practices must bere-examined when applied to the marketing of corporate character and good conduct. Finally, I developa revised set of ethical guidelines that are needed inorder to address the problems peculiar to the marketing of morally praiseworthy behavior.

KEY WORDS: advertising ethics, business ethics,corporate character, corporate philanthropy, marketing

Companies that contribute to charitable organizations rightly hope that these contributions willnot go unnoticed by consumers, investors, andmembers of local communities. Whether it is aline of acknowledgement in a brochure for Earth

Mary Lyn Stoll is presently an Associate Professor ofPhilosophy atMinnesota State University, Mankato.Her researchfocuses upon ethical theory and appliedethics. Her work examines the nature of corporate moralagency and the potential for development of corporatevirtue.

Day or a national advertising campaign, companies want consumers to know about the goodthat they do in the hopes that their good deeds

might also be good for the bottom line.In one sense, this is utterly unproblematic.Good companies are rewarded for good deedsand this in turn encourages other companies tofollow suit in giving back to the community.Companies that publicly proclaim their desire tobe a positive force in the community will alsobe more likely to face continued public scrutiny,and this will in turn provide a further incentiveto avoid wrongdoing. In another sense, however,advertising concerning corporate donations canbe morally problematic. When a company spendsfar more on advertising their good deeds than itspends on the deeds themselves, it is questionable whether or not such actions are truly

morally praiseworthy and whetheror not this

sort of advertising is unacceptably misleading.Although advertising campaigns are generally lessthan forthright concerning all of the relevantfacts, mild deception in marketing corporatecharacter is a much more serious offense. Whenadvertising campaigns concerning corporatephilanthropy are selectively advanced as a meansof reacting to negative public perceptionsresulting from prior misdeeds, this too raisesserious ethical concerns. At the same time,however, the benefits of positive publicity forgood deeds must not be undercut as an incentive for companies to engage in morally acceptable behavior. A set of guidelines for dealing withthe marketing of good corporate conduct isneeded in order to deal with these sorts of issues.

Thus, standard views of marketing ethics must beadjusted to deal with the moral peculiarities of

marketing good deeds. In this paper, Iwill begin

-^g- Journal of Business Ethics 41: 121-129, 2002.r ? 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in theNetherlands.

This content downloaded from 121.52.158.245 on Mon, 22 Apr 2013 01:26:40 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/10

122 Mary Lyn Stollwith standard views of marketing ethics and thendiscuss how such accounts must be revised inorder to deal with the peculiarities of marketingcorporate good conduct. I will then use twocases studies, one of unacceptable marketing ofcorporate conduct and one of very careful marketing of good corporate conduct, to suggestmore adequate guidelines towards which businesspersons inmarketing may turn when formulatingadvertising campaigns concerning good corporate conduct.

I. Standard views of marketing ethics

Since the primary justification for the market isthat it is effective in meeting consumers' desiresfor goods and services, it follows that marketingtactics ought not undermine the effective performance of this function. To be effective in

meeting consumer needs, however, the marketmust be one in which exchange is truly voluntary so that consumers will be able to makeinformed decisions in procuring the goods andservices they actually want. According to David

Holley, marketing ethics includes at least threemajor tenets: (1) Both the buyer and seller mustbe adequately informed concerning what is purchased and what is paid for that purchase. (2)

Neither buyer nor seller is compelled throughcoercion, severely restricted alternatives, or otherrelevant constraints on the ability to choose. And(3) Both buyer and seller are capable of makinga rational decision concerning the transaction(Holley, 1987). Without these sorts of constraintsin place, buyers and sellers will not be able totrust one another. Without such trust the partiesinvolved will find the business transaction muchmore cumbersome and time consuming than it

would be if each party adhered to such minimalethical guidelines. Apart from the expected utilityfor both consumers and businesses that resultsfrom such a system, one might also hope thatboth parties would adhere to these guidelines outof a respect for one of the most basic of moralobligations: a respect for others' ability to makeinformed autonomous decisions for themselves.

Whether one ultimately favors a Utilitarian,Kantian, Contractarian, or virtue based ethic,

there are certainly good moral reasons on anyone of these accounts to be honest, non-coercive,and non-deceptive in business transactions.

The extent to which market practices actuallymeet these criteria is still a matter of intensedebate. John Kenneth Galbraith, for instance, hasargued that business does not simply satisfyconsumer desires and needs (Galbraith, 1985).

Galbraith claims that advertisers coerce us byaiding in the creation of consumer desires that

may be in conflict with the greater good.Advertisers may also induce desires that arecontrary to a more full and satisfying life thatindividuals would be more likely pursue if notfor a constant barrage of advertisements inducingslavish devotion to procuring frivolous goods andservices. This poses moral problems in creatinga society in which individual virtue is fosteredabove base materialism.

Others, such as Theodore Levitt, would arguethat the virtues of non-deception, non-coercion,and honesty in advertising ought to be morecircumscribed. These theorists would defendpractices of puffery in which sellers make exaggerated or fanciful claims with respect to aproduct. Although such practices are clearly moreamatter of persuasive tactics than of simply providing customers with the information necessaryto making well reasoned decisions, one mightargue that such mild deception ismorally acceptable and may even serve a social good. In thisregard, Levitt, has argued that this sort ofadvertising can help to elevate the mundaneaspects of everyday existence with imaginativepromise serving a function more akin to art thanhuckstering (Levitt, 1970). Robert Arrington hasfurther argued that so long as the pursuit ofdesires fostered or even created by business isconsciously affirmed by the individual, autonomyand rationality are not compromised (Arrington,1982).

Richard Lippke objects to this line of reasoning arguing that the net affect of mass-advertising does in fact induce beliefs, desires, andattitudes that encourage the suppression ofrational decision making and thereby the suppression of autonomous individuals who definethemselves through these sorts of decisions.

Lippke maintains that the frequency with which



4/10

The Ethics ofMarketing Good Corporate Conduct 123

individuals are subjected to such ads and therepetitive nature of the ads are akin to oppression by a very loud and persistent bully whosimply will not give one the time or space tothink for oneself. Targeting the vulnerable,legitimizing emotional appeals, oversimplifyingclaims, relying upon superficiality, and encouraging shoddy standards for proof of claims areall common practices in mass advertising thatserve to subvert free, rational, and autonomousdecision-making. This barrage of advertisingteaches individuals that highly selective representation of information relevant to decision

making and the overstatement of possible benefitsare legitimate means of affecting the decisionmaking practices

of others.Again,

thesepracticesare antithetical to encouraging rational self-deter

mination (Lippke, 1989). Lippke sums up hisobjections to standard marketing practices asfollows:

(These messages) tell individuals . . . that theycannot believe or trust what others say, thatanything (or nothing!) can be proved, that evidencecontrary to one's claims may be ignored, and that

words can mean whatever anyone wants them tomean. They tell persons that success in communi

cation is a matter of persuading others no matterhow it is done. Such attitudes about thought andcommunication starkly oppose the habits and attitudes constitutive of critical competence: clarity,rigor, precision, patience, honesty, effort, etc.(Lippke, 1989, p. 45).

Lippke further objects to standard mass marketing practices in so far as such practices allowadvertisers to define the ideal of the good lifeby manipulating our desires and by exploiting ourinsecurities rather than allowing individuals themental space to think critically for themselvesabout what is constitutive of the good life.

According to Lippke, at best the mass onslaughtof advertising to which we are subjected distractsus from the things that truly matter to us suchas developing friendships or dealing with personalflaws and insecurities in a clearheaded way. At

worst, mass advertising exploits our insecuritiesin order to increase sales and deprives us collectively of critical thinking tools needed to makefree and well-reasoned decisions. Thus, Lippke

argues for even greater restraint in marketingpractices in order to assure that critical reasoningskills are fostered and that notions of what constitutes the good life are well reasoned rather than

merely market manipulated (Lippke, 1989).1

II. Moral problems peculiar to themarketing of corporate good conduct

Clearly there is much debate concerning thedegree to which standard advertising practices ineither particular cases or en masse are morallyproblematic. One might reasonably argue that acertain amount of deception in advertising isrelatively

harmless solong

as consumers bear inmind the extent to which our culture presupposes the principle of caveat emptor and the extentto which advertisers may take creative license indepicting a symbolic imagery with which theyhope a product will be associated.2 One mightalso reasonably argue that advertising, especiallyin mass quantities and constant doses, does in factthreaten rational autonomy and ought to bereformed so as to truly respect individuals byfostering practices of non-coercion, and nondeception as well as critical reasoning skills. Butwhen it comes to marketing good corporateconduct as morally praiseworthy, the stakes areraised both for those who hope to protect consumers from morally unacceptable business practices and for businesses that hope good corporateconduct will also be good for the bottom line.

Here, I will argue that the marketing of goodcorporate conduct represents a very special caseof advertising in which it is especially importantthat such marketing is carried out in a responsible fashion.In an increasingly global economy with arelatively weak system of international law,consumers need to know that they can dependupon the media to serve as awatchdog over companies that engage in unacceptable behavior.Even if government cannot punish the errantcompany, surely public moral outrage will oftenprove just as sure a punishment as any regulatory fine.3 If companies can "manage" the dispersal of information relevant to moral judgmentsof corporate behavior through the marketing of



5/10

124 Mary Lyn Stollisolated instances of good corporate conduct evenin cases where immoral conduct is the rule ratherthan the exception, consumers lose a vital toolin making well reasoned decisions about the

products and practices they choose to support. If,on the other hand, a company chooses to goabove and beyond the call of duty with respectto meeting moral obligations to its stakeholders,even when this may be more costly, it needs torely upon the marketing of good corporateconduct to make up for such losses and to explainthe moral concerns that may be driving its pricesslightly higher. In order to better discern whatthe standards for marketing good corporateconduct should be, Iwill first examine a case in

which the marketing of good corporate conductis done a fashion that ismorally problematic andthen later discuss another case of appropriateadvertising of good corporate character. Theseexamples will serve as illustrations of broaderpoints concerning the sorts of guidelines that

marketers ought to consider when marketinggood corporate conduct.

Phillip Morris' troubles with unethical, andoften illegal, behavior are well known. Thecompany has been accused and convicted repeatedly of having knowingly deceived customersconcerning the health risks of smoking and ofhaving targeted children who lack adequate skillsto make well-reasoned decisions concerning thepurchase of the product. Phillip Morris andothers in the tobacco industry are all faced witha peculiar marketing problem in that theirproduct is addictive. This is one clear case inwhich business can actually create and sustain adesire within the consumer to continue topurchase a product simply because the productitself has chemically addictive properties.

Although tobacco companies must rely uponother factors to induce the initial purchase oftobacco products, once the consumer has begunto purchase the industry's products, he or she willbe unlikely to stop. This is part of the reason whythe public has generally found the marketing ofcigarettes to children to be especially repugnant.Since use of the product inherently introduceselements of coercion after its initial use due toits chemically addictive properties, it is especiallypernicious to target those who can not yet make

well reasoned autonomous decisions with respectto this initial purchase.

To offset much of the negative publicity associated with Phillip Morris' own involvement inthese sorts of deceptive and manipulative practices, Phillip Morris has launched a campaignknow as "People." The campaign is meant tohighlight many of the positive things that Phillip

Morris has achieved through its philanthropicdonations to charitable organizations. These adsincluded print ads in prominent magazines publicizing money that Miller, a Phillip Morris

Company, has set aside for scholarships and jobtraining for technical college students. Other ads

highlight the money that Phillip Morris has givento the Meals on Wheels program for homeboundpersons who need help in getting adequate nourishment and the company's Supplier Diversity

Program meant to ensure increased partnershipswith minority owned businesses. While all of

these are noble and worthwhile philanthropicendeavors, Adbusters has recently criticized Phillip

Morris for spending one hundred eight milliondollars on advertising these purported good deedsand only sixty million dollars on corporate donations to these charitable organizations (Adbusters,2001). When

acompany spends far

more onadvertising its good deeds, then on facilitatinggood deeds, it is questionable whether or notthe actions are truly morally praiseworthy andwhether or not this sort of advertising is unacceptably misleading. The issue is further complicated by the fact that this ad campaign focusingupon areas of corporate excellence in one area,charitable giving, has been developed partlyas a response to public censure over corporate

misdeeds in another area, namely misinformingconsumers concerning health risks and marketingan addictive product to children.One might respond by insisting that there is

nothing wrong with letting consumers know allof the relevant information concerning their

moral judgments of Phillip Morris, including thegood that Phillip Morris has done. Furthermore,if one advocates a stockholder view of the cor

poration and its moral obligations, philanthropicdonations are only justified insofar as they helpthe company to turn a profit for stockholders(Friedman, 1970; Hasnas, 1998). Thus spending



6/10


more on advertising philanthropy than on thephilanthropy itself is entirely justified on such aview.

Even though a stockholder view of corporateobligation is itself highly contentious amongst

many business ethicists, even ifmanagerial obligations are so drastically limited as this sort oftheory suggests, I would maintain that there isstill good reason to think that these practices areimmoral. Even stockholder theorists maintainthat pursuit of profit is only justified given certain

basic constraints. Although it is true that thecompany has a right, and perhaps even anobligation, to let consumers know all of therelevant facts concerning its corporate character,it does not thereby follow that an advertisingcampaign is the most appropriate means by

which to disseminate such information. For allof the reasons that Lippke gives for thinkingthat mass advertising is morally problematic ingeneral, advertising to disseminate relevant infor

mation concerning corporate character is evenmore problematic. Ads are generally designedto appeal to the emotions and quick judgmentrather than to reasoned discussion. Adscommonly rely upon a select subset of information rather than providing all of the relevantinformation needed to make a decision. Whilethese practices may be common and perhapseven relatively harmless when used to advertiseproducts, they are far more suspect when usedto advertise the company's moral character.Especially with something so serious as one'sconsidered moral judgment, attention to carefulreasoned decision making and access to all of therelevant facts is necessary. This does not meanthat advertising with respect to corporate goodconduct is inherently wrong. It does follow,however, that many practices commonly used in

marketing are thoroughly inappropriate to advertising corporate good conduct.

The Phillip Morris campaign, "People," bearstwo fundamental morally unacceptable features.First, the campaign uses the value attached toright conduct as a mere means towards increasedprofit and positive brand associations. Rightconduct is a far more valuable aspect of humanexistence than mere profit on any account. Usingsomething of higher value, and perhaps even of

the utmost value, to promote something ofsecondary value is unacceptable and indicates alack of respect for what matters most, namelygood character and right conduct. Take, forinstance, the case of someone seeking to win anelection for homecoming queen who makesseveral very visible appearances at the local soupkitchen or at a community service day just beforethe election. She rarely ever engages in community service activities otherwise and would notparticipate in these activities if not for thecontest. There is clearly something wrong withher behavior. Part of the problem is the way in

which this approach appeals to the values associated with the moral good to promote something of lesser value, namely this particularindividual's winning a contest for beauty andpopularity. Feigning high moral character orattempting to gain esteem merely to achievesome other lesser end indicates a lack of respectfor moral values that are clearly of a higher valuethan the secondary ends these values are used to

promote.In the case of Phillip Morris, this problem isexacerbated by the fact that Phillip Morris hasused the value that individuals associate with

what ismorally good and right in order to offsetthe damage that it has done to its own businessthrough its past failures to act in a fashion thatis respectful of what right conduct demands.

Thus, the company has displayed an utter disregard for values attached to the moral good twiceover: first by deceiving customers concerninghealth risks and preying upon children who areespecially vulnerable, and second by profaningthe moral law yet again by selectively appealingto it only to regain profits lost as punishment forits earlier indiscretions.

Itmight be objected that this sort of criticismof Phillip Morris presupposes that good corporate conduct can never be marketed in an ethically acceptable fashion since businesses wouldalways market good corporate conduct with aneye towards whether or not the action wouldresult in increased profit. Thus, all marketing ofgood corporate conduct in effect merely usesthe value of the moral good or right, somethingof the utmost value, for the pursuit of profit,something of secondary value. But just as indi



7/10

126 Mary Lyn Stollviduals that engage in good conduct may reapthe rewards of moral praise without therebyimpugning the moral praiseworthiness of theiractions, so too companies may reap the rewardsof moral praise even when this entails greaterprofit without it thereby following that the actionwas done solely for the purpose of gaining profitby whatever means necessary. There is nothingintrinsically wrong with receiving deserved

moral praise especially when this praise allows acompany to offset potential financial costs ofengaging in ethical conduct. On the other hand,there is something wrong with deliberately

manipulating public sentiment so as to reap therewards of moral praise even when the recipientdoes not ultimately deserve such praise. In thecase of the Phillip Morris "People" campaign,the fact that (1) far more was spent on advertisingthe good deeds than on the good deeds themselves and (2) the campaign was designed in partto help the company avoid deserved moral blamefor prior misdeeds, indicates that moral praise

may not be appropriate.

III. Appropriate marketing of goodcorporate conduct

In order to market good corporate conduct in amorally acceptable fashion, one must constantlybear in mind that such marketing is premisedupon the notion that the company should benefitfrom deserved moral praise but that companiesought not use the values associated with the

moral good and with right conduct solely as ameans towards increasing profit. When evaluatingthe moral character of either a person or anorganization it is of the utmost importance thathonesty, non-deception, and non-coercion are

maintained. If marketers engage in mild deception or slight manipulation when selling a newperfume or motor oil, the stakes are nowherenear as high as when such deception or manipulation occurs with respect to evaluations of

moral character. In the first case, deceptive marketing may lessen somewhat the value that aconsumer attaches to a particular brand ofperfume or of oil and may decrease slightly one'ssense of trust in others. In the second case,

deceptive marketing practices may result in alesser value attached to morality itself and maygreatly decrease one's trust of others. After all, ifan organization is willing to lie about even itsown moral character, something of the utmostvalue, then it is likely that this same organization will lie about anything whatsoever.

The importance of honesty with respect toevaluations of moral character entails that marketers of good corporate conduct must not onlyavoid even mild deception or subtle manipulation but that the company itself must be opento further critical evaluation to ensure that honestpresentation of relevant facts is available. Honestpresentation of the facts concerning moraljudgments of corporate conduct are especiallyimportant not only because they are judgmentsconcerning something of the utmost importance,namely right conduct, but also because it is only

with accurate estimations of the moral rightnessof corporate character that companies willcontinue to be motivated to do what is right.Since companies may be quite powerful, andoften extend their activities beyond the boundaries of any given country, it is especially important that companies be motivated by fear ofdeserved moral reprobation if their activities areto be constrained by moral considerations even

when the law does not so constrain their actions.It is also especially important that companies

which do not deserve the benefits of moralpraise, including a possible willingness on the partof consumers to pay more for the product orservice, do not as a rule reap those benefits.

Otherwise their competitors, who may incursuch costs, will be unable to compete with othersin the industry that do not incur such costs butreap the same financial benefits nonetheless. Tosecure both of these ends, it is thus crucial thatthe marketing of good corporate conduct gohand in hand with an openness to external auditsto ensure the accuracy of information provided.For this reason, the Body Shop provides agood example of appropriate marketing of goodcorporate conduct. Not only does the BodyShop market itself as a company sensitive to theneeds of persons living in third world countries,opposed to unnecessary animal testing, andopposed to preying upon women's insecurities



8/10


with respect to masculinist notions of beauty, italso opens itself up to outside audits on a regularbasis.4

The Body Shop has carved out a niche foritself as a company with a reputation for socialresponsibility. Instead of simply using standardchemical ingredients, the Body Shop has soughtout natural ingredients and products that can beproduced in third world countries, especially bypoor women, for which it then pays a decentprice. The "Trade Not Aid" campaign is thusdesigned to address the company's obligations tosocial justice. Early on, the Body Shop alsosought to produce products that were not testedon animals and which included ingredients that

had not been tested on animals in the recent past.Finally, the Body Shop, rather than launchingthe standard cosmetics advertising campaigns

with dangerously thin models promising sexualprowess and eternal youth, launched a campaign

with a more realistic looking Barbie doll to highlight the ways in which the industry as a

whole engages in marketing practices that preyupon women's insecurities in a patriarchal youthobsessed society. The company also makes a concerted effort to avoid marketing that createsneeds for women that would not exist otherwiseand lists all ingredients on its labels even whenthis is not required by law. The Body Shop'scommitment to honesty in marketing evenextended so far as to labeling one hair treatmentproduct with the warning that it contained henna

which is smelly and resembles manure (Hartmanand Beck-Dudley, 1999).5 In the judgment of

many reflective consumers, these examples areparadigmatic of the nature of good corporatemoral conduct. Rather than launching a barrageof repetitive television ads, the company avoided

marketing good corporate conduct in thisfashion. Instead it relied upon word of mouth,news stories, a book by the company's founder,pamphlets, and posters in store windows to getthe message across.

But perhaps even more importantly, the BodyShop is subject to regular social audits withoutside input in order to ensure that thecompany is responsive to concerns voiced by

workers, customers, and citizens.6 This is whathelps to guarantee that whatever benefits it gains

from the perceived moral praiseworthiness of itsactions are in fact deserved. The company hasrun five independently verified environmentalstatements since 1992. The company has alsodone a number of more general social audits inorder to give voice to various stakeholders andtheir concerns. When the company facedscrutiny over its decisions, for instance putting

petroleum based ingredients in its products, itmade an honest attempt to address such concerns.Although it first questioned the methods usedby reporters breaking the story and wrote aletter to Business Ethics, under false pretenses,defending its position, the Body Shop laterexplained how it felt that the public had simply

misunderstood its statedpolicy

and after a socialaudit vowed to control its "grouchiness" whenfaced with critical scrutiny (Sillanpaa, 1998).7Since all ingredients are listed even when the lawdoes not require it and since outside audits areroutinely carried out, the Body Shop arguablydeserves whatever benefits it gains from marketing its good corporate conduct.

While not all companies will find it feasibleto engage in honesty in marketing to quite theextent that the Body Shop has done, all companies should aspire to being as honest and ascareful not to manipulate or coerce judgmentsconcerning the marketing of good corporateconduct. Since there is so much more at stake,it is especially important that the considered

moral judgments of consumers rest upon accurateinformation rather than the occasionally manipulative and often opaque presentation of information in standard marketing campaigns. Becauseit is so important both with respect to motivating. companies to respect the constraints upon actionimposed by moral laws and with respect topromoting and protecting a general respect forthe values associated with the moral good andright action, marketing of good corporateconduct must be undertaken with special careand honesty. This honesty must be guaranteed byan openness and willingness by companies toengage in outside social audits with respect to thegood corporate conduct from which thecompany hopes to benefit.8 Using Phillip Morris'example of how companies may market goodconduct in away that is disrespectful of the moral



9/10

128 Mary Lyn Stollgood and of right action and the Body Shop'sexample of how good corporate conduct maybe made public in a morally acceptable fashion,

marketers can gain some of idea of what appropriate marketing of good corporate conductentails. Marketers must consistently bear in mindthe importance of marketing good corporateconduct in a fashion that does not treat the valueof right conduct as secondary in value to the procurement of profit. This may be achieved by

making a special effort to be honest in advertisinggood corporate conduct.

IV. Conclusion

I have argued that a certain level of deceptionor less than forthright presentation of relevantfacts by those marketing products may not beparticularly harmful so long as individuals areaware of such practices and able to make wellreasoned decisions concerning the effects of suchcampaigns upon their purchasing decisions. Butsuch practices are much more serious when usedto promote purported good corporate conduct.

While it is not wrong, per se, for a company tomarket and benefit from moral praise for goodcorporate conduct, it iswrong for companies touse the values associated with the moral good andwith right action as a mere means to gaininggreater profit. Deception with respect to corporate character ismore problematic since: (a) It isa far greater omission and a far greater attackupon the institution of trust as such to lie aboutfacts relevant to determining the moral praise

worthiness of an action or institution than toengage in deception with respect to marketing a?good or service, (b) This practice underminesmoral motivation for companies to actuallyengage in right action rather than merelyappearing to merit moral praise. Further, (c) Itis wrong to use something of the utmost value,such as the moral good or right action, as a meremeans to something of lesser value such as profit.In order for companies to engage in the marketing of good corporate conduct in a morallyacceptable fashion, companies must not producea barrage of ads that encourage faulty reasoningand must stem practices of selective presentation

of relevant facts more common in other areasof marketing companies must also in generalrecognize a greater obligation to clarity, honesty,and non-coercion in presenting facts relevant tothe company's garnering the benefits of perceived

morally praiseworthy action. To achieve this end,it is also important that companies which engagein the marketing of good corporate conduct

make every effort to ensure that consumers aregranted access to relevant information and thatoutside audits with respect to the good corporate conduct marketed are available. This is likelyone of the only ways to ensure that the benefitsof moral praise garnered by making moral praise

worthiness of corporate actions more widelyknown through marketing strategies are in factjustly deserved.

AcknowledgementsI would like to thank attendees of the Eighth

Annual International Conference PromotingBusiness Ethics for their helpful advice andrecommendations on an earlier version of thispaper.

Notes1 For more on objections to the pervasiveness of mass

advertising and its affect upon autonomy, seeSneddon, 2001.2 On the extent to which the principle of caveatemptor is presupposed by and or limited by UnitedStates culture and law, see Carson, 2001.3 For more on public censure as a means of affectingcorporate behavior, see Maynard, 2001.4

I do not mean to suggest that the Body Shop is aperfectly virtuous company, merely that they havedone a particularly good job with marketing goodcorporate conduct. There may have never been a perfectly virtuous person, but this does not entail thatthe concept of the virtuous person cannot guide ouractions as an ideal towards which we may strive. Sotoo, even if there has never been a perfectly virtuouscompany, it need not follow that the ideal of thevirtuous company cannot be a useful guide to action.A clearer conception of this ideal may be developedby examining various companies that embody one or

more virtues of a specific virtues even if no one



10/10


company embodies all possible virtues appropriate tobusinesses.5 For more on the ethics of women's advertising, seeCohan, 2001.6 For further information on the benefits of socialaudits in guaranteeing good corporate conduct, seeHess, 2001.7 Although itwould have been better had the BodyShop reacted in a less aggressively defensive mannerwhen faced with initial public scrutiny, the companyis still a good model. Even though its behavior in thepast has not always been perfect, the company hasthe added virtue of recognizing past failures and

making strides to improve upon them. Corporatecharacter can not be thought of as static. A companywith good character, like an individual with goodcharacter, is constantly evolving. This evolution andgrowth in the face of past failures is as much a partof good character as is any corporate virtue.8When a company decides to market its charitabledonations to nonprofits using the logos of nonprofitorganizations, it is again especially important thathonesty ismaintained. This kind of marketing is aparticular sort of marketing good corporate conduct.It is especially important that such ads do notencourage consumers to infer that nonprofit organizations have endorsed the company or its producteven when they have not. Failure to make this clearor failure to disclose whether or not

nonprofitswere

paid for the use of their logo in such ads is yet anothercase of using the values associated with the moralgood and with right conduct to advance somethingof secondary value, namely profit. For more on thisparticular sort of marketing good corporate conduct,see alsoWulfson, 2001.

References

Adbusters: Journal of theMental Environment: 2001, 36,1-6.

Arrington R.: 1982, 'Advertising & BehaviorControl', Journal of Business Ethics 1, 3?12.

Carson, T.: 2001, 'Deception and WithholdingInformation in Sales', Business Ethics Quarterly11(2), 275-306.

Cohan, J. A.: 2001, 'Towards aNew Paradigm in the

Ethics of Women's Advertising', Journal of BusinessEthics 33, 323-337.Friedman, M.: 1970, 'The Social Responsibility ofBusiness is to Increase its Profits', New York Times

Magazine (September 13), 33.Gailbraith, J. K.: 1985, 'Persuasion

- and Power', inJ. R. Desjardins and J. J. McCall (eds.),Contemporary Issues in Business Ethics (WadsworthPublishing Company, Belmont, CA), pp. 142-147.

Hartman, C. and C. L. Beck-Dudley: 1999,'Marketing Strategies & the Search for Virtue: ACase Analysis of the Body Shop International',

Journal of Business Ethics 20, 249-263.Hasnas, J.: 1998, 'The Normative Theories ofBusiness Ethics: A Guide for the Perplexed',Business Ethics Quaterly 8(1), 19-42.Hess, D.: 2001, 'Regulating Corporate Social

Performance: A New Look at Social Accounting,Auditing, and Reporting', Business Ethics Quarterly11(2), 307-330.

Holley, D. M.: 1987, 'AMoral Evaluation of SalesPractices', Business & Professional Ethics Journal 5,3-21.

Levitt, T.: 1970, 'The Morality of Advertising',Harvard Business Review 48, 84-92.Lippke, R. L.: 1989, 'Advertising & the SocialConditions of Autonomy', Business & ProfessionalEthics Journal 8, 35-58.

Maynard,M. L.: 2001, 'Policing

TransnationalCommerce: Global Awareness in the Margins of

Morality', Journal of Business Ethics 30, 17-27.Sillanpaa, M.: 1998, 'The Body Shop Values Report? Towards Integrated Stakeholder Auditing', Journal

of Business Ethics 17, 1443-1456.Sneddon, A.: 2001, 'Advertising and Deep

Autonomy', Journal of Business Ethics 33, 15?28.Wulfson, M.: 2001, 'The Ethics of Corporate Social

Responsibility and Philanthropic Ventures', Journalof Business Ethics 29, 135-145.

Department of Philosophy,Minnesota State University, Mankato,Mankato, MN 56001,

U.S.A.E-mail: [email protected],

[email protected]

Thi t t d l d d f 121 52 158 245 M 22 A 2013 01 26 40 AM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

article 4 paper be

Documents