The essay below was written as an assignment for university, receiving a high score upon marking. I hope that you enjoy it and find it enlightening, although please bear in mind that the topic may be outdated by a couple of months at this point, being handed in in April this year.
The assignment was split into four parts wherein we had to firstly state what the responsibility deal was and provide facts on the problem it attempted to solve, along with Mars' official response to it. Secondly, we had to discuss the for and against arguments with regards to Mars' position. Proceeding from this point, the discussion focused on highlighting the ethical arguments of Mars' critics, distilling their theoretical essence and then providing a critique of the government on its policy. Finally, two positions had to be adopted in the conclusion: A personal ethical summary of Mars and the government, with reasoned suggestions for increasing social good and secondly, the position of the marketing manager for Mars, and what could be done in that capacity to overcome the problems faced, both morally and practically.
The word count for this piece (excluding references/bibliography) was a maximum of 2000, hence the lack of great depth, so I hope it isn't too brief. I did change some of the language to make the piece flow a little better so the word count has increased slightly. Please feed back if you wish and thanks for reading.
ABBREVIATIONS:
WHO:
World Health Organisation
DfH:
Department of Health
NHS:
National Health Service
CMO:
Chief Marketing Officer
CSR: Corporate Social Responsibility
INTRODUCTION:
The
UK government’s Public Health Responsibility Deal is a pledge compiled by the
current Department of Health to tackle ongoing concerns such as obesity,
amongst other ailments (DfH, 2012a: Online.) The webpage detailing the partners (DfH,
2012b: Online,) cites several pledges from manufactures, distributors and
suppliers of not just food and drink, but energy, insurance etc. This action is
designed to empower companies to aid the nation in tackling its pervasive health problems. Concerns surrounding obesity include
childhood obesity levels expected to reach 50% by 2020, (Wright, 2012a,) and
general obesity rising above 20% for both genders (DfH, 2012c: Online.)
Mars
has decided to launch five new Dolmio sauces that contribute
to the nation’s recommended ‘5 a day’ (Reynolds, 2012,) as well as reducing the
size of confectionary goods, such as the flagship Mars Bar and reducing the salt content of other food ranges
(Mars Foods UK, 2012: Online.) Mars possesses an extensive brand and
product portfolio including: Snickers, Galaxy, M&Ms and Milky Way (Mars Global, 2012: Online) and from this product
range, there is a large portion of needless calories etc. that can be cut from
the nation’s diet over the years, which should greatly aid the resistance to
the obesity ‘epidemic’. Nevertheless, the policy set out by the current
government has come under criticism alongside the food industry's participation.
MARS’
ETHICAL POSITION; FOR & AGAINST:
Mars’
position on this issue is to commit its expertise and
resources to removing unnecessary numbers of calories and to reduce the size of
portions, and extend product mixes to incorporate foods that
encourage healthy lifestyles. This position could be construed as extremely
ethical on the surface because they are acting for the wellbeing of a nation
and its inhabitants, (their customers,) which could therefore proceed to become a major boost
to PR and brand/corporate reputation. This emulates a virtuous position (Nieto,
2009) of using wealth for common good (Chryssides & Kaler, 1996a) and if, as a result, the brand reputation of Mars
increases and their CSR is well received, the company may be endorsed by
opinion-leaders such as governments and pressure groups (Haywood, 2005.) This effect can
perpetuate across society whose citizens may decide to pay collectively for Mars’ goods and not turn
away for ethical reasons, possibly rivalling the CSR of competitors such as
Unilever (2013.) This hypothetical mass expenditure of disposable income arriving on Mars’
cash flow can then be used to increase R&D operations, which in turn can increase
their health campaign through additional research. This can further increase the
healthiness of the product range and as the cycle continues ad infinitum, the
Mars brand may see a complete repositioning, taking it from a seemingly
unhealthy company to a health-conscious corporate citizen. This would ultimately
increase the happiness of the company and its major shareholders, as well as
the consumers who are now healthier as a result of Mars’ actions, if seen from
a utilitarian perspective. (Powell, 2012: Presentation; Chrissides & Kaler,
1996b.)
However,
the utilitarian perspective does not satisfy deontological criteria and nor
does it provide us with a conversion scale for the two types of happiness
‘measured’. The fact that Mars is a legal entity, a structure that is designed
with the traditional sole intention of satisfying a bottom line financially (Beets, 2011,) the ethics applied to its position can cynically be perceived to
be a mere PR exercise to generate brand awareness and increase survival chances
or market dominance, with little regard for unconditional principal. Although contemporarily there is a triple bottom line –one
of those being social considerations- the only one of these three lines that
impacts survival of businesses perpetually is financial performance e.g.
liquidity to prevent failure, hence the hesitation to adapt, (Henriques &
Richardson, 2004.) Moreover, the responsibility deal was a voluntary option not
enforced by law (Mercer, 2013,) which suggests that Mars’ commitment was
possibly born of insidious motives and not due to a categorical imperative of
moral upstanding (Kant, 1785,) due to the following question: Why has the company only
recently drawn attention to the issue, when it is fresh in the minds of key opinion-leaders/-formers, after the policy was announced by Mars' regulators, the government? This suggests that Mars were already aware of this and chose to ignore it
beforehand and let the public live in ignorance/apathy. This opinion is
reiterated by economist Milton Freidman, who states that CSR is only ethical when
done insincerely, precisely because it is used as method to increase profits,
the real moral obligation that officers/directors have to shareholders (Bakan,
2005.) Suffice it to say, Mars' actions are akin to a child ceasing to conduct themselves disorderly, for fear of force enacted by a parental figure.
But Utilitarianism,
however, may be seen as more positive from a practical standpoint because Mars
possesses a catalogue of resources that will aid the nation’s problems. The
trade-off of insincerity for accomplishing the objective may be the best way
forward and to suggest that its position is unethical may be construed as
counter-productive pedantry due to ‘higher-order’ priorities. The “…man dissatisfied is better than the pig
satisfied” quote is testament to this: Mill, (1906: 260.) There is also the
philosophical argument to contend with regarding CSR, since corporations as
legal ‘people’ cannot think and feel like humans. So, to expect a duty-bound
ethic on this topic when perceived through the lens of ‘Mars’, instead of
individual humans is easily evaluated as impossible, since Mars is not human and therefore not a moral vessel (Achbar & Abbott, 2003a.)
This
leaves us with a predicament where a compromise must be sought between the two
sides of the argument, since today’s reigning opinion on CSR is that companies
should strive to achieve it for the good of society (Warren, 2000,) despite the fact that over recent
years, this attitude has fallen behind in wake of the recent financial
crisis (IPSOS-MORI, 2012: Online.) This attitude of CSR-conscientiousness would
be especially true if one were to accept the anthropomorphic nature of Mars,
since real humans for the most part have changed in terms of a moral zeitgeist
i.e. ‘spirit of the times’ (Dawkins, 2006,) resulting in a paradigm shift of
morality and therefore, our corporate citizens should do the same since they
are ultimately comprised of human,
moral agents. They -like the rest of society- must abide by the same laws, unless of course the nature of
their duty-bound role of profit making inhibits this effect, but why else would
society allow companies to exist, if not to serve the interests of their societies?
(Christian, 2012: Presentation.) There is a semi-popular notion that our relationship
with corporations, is akin to Frankenstein’s monster overpowering its creator;
could this be why companies struggle to maintain ethicality? (See Achbar &
Abbott, 2003b, “Psychopath” analysis of corporate structure/’personality’.)
ETHICAL
POSITION OF THE CRTICS & THE CASE AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT REPONSIBILITY DEAL:
The
responsibility deal has come under criticism from certain groups and
individuals such as Professor Simon Capewell, who accused Minister Lansley of “…gross dereliction of duty,” (Wright,
2012b: Online.) This criticism of the
scheme is born from the potential PR opportunity that food companies have been
given, which can be construed as a conflict of interest since companies are
volunteering to do this, meaning that they can sign up and possibly do
something negligible and still reap the same benefits. This can, in short, do
nothing other than increase the market domination of the oligarchies within the
food industry (Author Unknown, 2012.) A similar criticism is made by Professor
Anna Gilmore, who also believes that there is a conflict of interest, since
companies have to legally make returns for shareholders and would therefore not
necessarily act in the interests of other stakeholder groups. (Hughes, 2012:
Online.)
Both
of these opinions link to deontological ethics, since the notion of Mars using
the nations problems that it is –at least in part- responsible for and
proceeding to rectify its wrongdoings whilst under public watch, purely to
benefit from their trust and essentially use them as a means to an end (greater
profit etc.,) would be considered unethical under Kantian tenants. Teleological ethics on the other hand, would consider policy/practice over principles as the
ethically upstanding view, since good can still come of this situation- as
previously mentioned (Fisher & Lovell, 2005.)
Other
critics of the responsibility deal include Gilmore et al. (2011,) who state
that the food and alcohol industries have been given special pleading in
cooperating with the government since other industries e.g. tobacco, are
excluded from such activity by WHO. The article also states that tobacco’s lack
of involvement with such schemes has seen a decline in the number of casualties
etc., whereas the scenario is the opposite regarding food/alcohol, branding the
problem an “…industrial epidemic: Online.”
The
government responsibility deal can be seen as counter-productive or unethical,
due to its inclusion of those who are in the wrong to begin with. Mars and its
shareholders/directors etc. know what effects their products and services have
on society, yet they continue to associate themselves with these ills because
it is profitable. For government to enlist the help of those who have little/no
genuine interest in solving health
problems violates ethics of the duty of government, who do have the duty to look after the citizenry via the NHS. Yet they
choose to delegate this responsibility back into the hands of those who caused
the problem to begin with, who then realize that they can ‘sell the cure’ back
to the citizens and ultimately be happier than the citizens whom they
disingenuously ‘helped’. From this point it can perpetuate over several years,
companies ‘apologizing’ and rectifying their wrongs to retain those whom they
wronged. This helps save reputation and therefore business through these
so-called ‘responsibility deals’.
CONCLUSION:
In
conclusion, the responsibility deal can be seen as both ethical and unethical depending
on personal ethics and schools of thought. The main points to consider in this
debate regard the model of principles v practice. The fact that Mars has
effectively used customers as a means to an end i.e. not treated them as humans
who have health problems, is seen by deontologists as unethical. However, the
teleologically-inclined see the action of corporate involvement as the best way
forward, due to the practicality of them doing right by their wrongs; possibly
a form of justice.
However,
there are other issues since the ethics argument is more than a two-way
discussion, since it may not be government or Mars to blame for the problems of
the nation. There are other schools of thought such as Objectivism. Rand would
argue that personal responsibility (Bowie, 2001) of those with health problems
would require that Mars and the
government do nothing. Additionally, a study from Mintel, (2012) states that
with Briton’s incomes reduced and food prices rising, citizens are eating less
regardless, although cheaper food tends to be unhealthy.
In
terms of personal opinion and plan of action to tackle the key issues of food
marketing raised, the best solution seems to be to cut down on unhealthy numbers but
without reducing portion sizes and increasing prices. This would be ethical
since it not only gives consumers healthier diets, but also does not take
advantage since the portions are still the same amount for the same price. This
means that –providing consumers do their part- the population will be healthier
overall and will therefore live longer, happier lives meaning their attitude
towards food companies should not be tarnished, aiding profitability. This
leads to positive acclaim of said companies and through this positive
reception, the wider industry may also be able to increase its own opinion
space in current affairs/government policy etc. and should it maintain its
image of integrity and morality, a cycle of progress should ensue involving
both government and industry working together to increase ethical consumption
across society. The key point here is the lack of short-term profit-making and
CSR that is deserved since prices are
kept the same, or even possibly lowered so portions remain congruent with
prices so profits remain the same. The main problem with this view is that,
deontologically, it still looks out for the best interests of business since
the emphasis is on the longer-term aspects of citizens living longer to consume
more. The idea of forced lack of
profit-making however, can eliminate the increased happiness of the industry in
the short-term, instead remaining vis-à-vis with consumer happiness.
From
the second perspective of Mars’ CMO, the ethical action would be to satisfy
superiors by delivering a new system of reducing unhealthy aspects of foods and
possibly engaging in philanthropic activities to alleviate as much damage as
possible caused. Since the job is on the line, it would be better for one to
retain the position of power and enact actual
change and attempt to take Mars as high up the CSR Pyramid (Carroll, 1991,)
as possible to become as much an ethical corporate citizen as Mars can be. There
are other stakeholders, who also have equal rights to free speech, entitlements
to profit etc. In short, the model of the corporation is here to stay and to
even think that the logical position is to reject one that takes society
forward on these issues, because it is not perfect, commits nirvana fallacy
(Bennett, 2013: Online.) The real question surrounding this issue could be: Can
corporations truly be ethical under tenants such as categorical imperatives, or
does the pinnacle lie at egoism of fulfilling moral duties to further
self-interest, because Mars is after all, an anthropomorphic legal
structure.
REFERENCES:
- Author Unknown.
(2012) ‘Health Secretary Andrew Lansley Criticised Over Government Obesity
Policy’ Huffington Post. [Online]
August 27th [accessed December 9th 2012]
- Bakan, J. (2005)
The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit
of Profit & Power p. 34 London: Constable & Robinson ltd.
-
Beets, S. (2011) ‘Critical Events in the Ethics of U.
S. Corporation History’ Journal of
Business Ethics Vol. 102 Issue 2 pp. 193-219
-
Bowie, R. A.
(2001) Ethical Studies p. 93
Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes
-
Carroll, A. B. (1991) ‘The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility:
Towards the Moral Management of Organisational Stakeholders’ Business Horizons Vol. 34 No. 4 pp.
39-48
-
Christian, J.
(2012) Full Spoken-Word Statement: “[I
believe] businesses exist to make society better otherwise, why would we allow
them to exist?” 6/12/12 [14:00-15:00] LECTURE 10: The Triple Bottom Line (Lecture Hall: G.27)
-
Chryssides, G.
& Kaler, J. (1996) Essentials of
Business Ethics p. 32 Berkshire: McGraw-Hill
-
Ibid. p. 34
-
Dawkins, R.
(2006) The God Delusion pp. 300-301
London: Bantam Press
- Fisher, C. &
Lovell, A. (2005) Business Ethics &
Values p. 100 Essex: Pearson Education
-
Haywood, R.
(2005) ‘Corporate/Investor Relations: Build a Reputation that Becomes the
Company’ In: Corporate Reputation, the
Brand & the Bottom Line London: Kogan Page
-
Henriques, A.
& Richardson, J. (2004) The Triple
Bottom Line, Does it All Add Up? Assessing the Sustainability of Business &
CSR pp. 5-8 Ipswich: Earthscan
-
Kant, I (1785);
translated by: Ellington, J. W. Grounding
for the Metaphysics of Morals 3rd Ed. p. 30 Hackett: Indiana
-
Mill, J. S.
(1906) Utilitarianism p. 260 Chicago:
University of Chicago Press
-
Mintel. (2012) Dieting Trends: Executive Summary -UK
November 2012 p. 2 London: Mintel Group
-
Nieto, D. V.
(2009) ‘Corporate Social Responsibility as Part of Your Brand’ Manager: British Journal of Administrative
Management Issue 68 pp. 28-29
-
Powell, M.
(2012) LECTURE 8: Applying Ethical
Principles Slide No. 11 [POWERPOINT] Manchester: MMU, distributed on: 15/11/12
Lecture Hall: G.27
- The Corporation. (2003) Directed by M. Achbar.
& J. Abbott. [DVD] Canada: Zeitgeist Films
- Ibid.
-
Warren, R. C.
(2000) Corporate Governance &
Accountability p. viii Wirral: Liverpool Academic Press
-
Wright, O.
(2012) ‘Lansley Has Caved in to Fast Food Industry, Says Former Advisor’ The Independent
[Online] 27th August [accessed January 14th]
-
Ibid.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
-
Albuquerque, D.
(2011.) Business Ethics: Principles &
Practice 3rd Ed. India: Oxford University Press
-
Companies Act
2006. (c.46) London: HMSO.
-
Edwards, T.
(2000.) ‘Marketing, Advertising and the Construction of the Contemporary Consumer’
In: Contradictions of Consumption:
Concepts, Practices & Politics in Consumer Society pp. 52-79,
Philadelphia: Open University Press
-
Food Inc. (2008)
[DVD] (Kenner, R.) USA: Magnolia Pictures
-
Haywood, R.
(2005) ‘Public Affairs: Set the Agenda for Legislators & Opinion Leaders’
In: Corporate Reputation, the Brand &
the Bottom Line London: Kogan Page
-
Klein, N. (2000)
No Logo 10th Anniversary
Ed. Hammersmith: Haper-Collins
-
Lukas, B. A.,
Whitwell, G. J. & Heide, J. B. (2013) ‘Why Do Customers Get More Than They
Need? How Organisational Culture Shapes Product Capability Decisions’ Journal of Marketing Vol. 77 No. 1 pp.
1-12
-
Pettet, B.
(2005) Company Law 2nd Ed.
Essex: Pearson Education
-
Sriramesh, K.
& Vercic, D. (2003) The Global Public
Relations Handbook New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
-
Wang, A. &
Anderson, R. B. (2011) ‘A Multi-Staged Model of Consumer Responses to CSR
Communications’ Journal of Corporate
Citizenship Spring: Issue 41 pp. 51-68
