Translate

Sunday, August 4, 2013

Marketing Ethics: Essay on Mars & HM's Government Responsibility Deal


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 I hope that you enjoy it and find it enlightening, although please bear in mind that the topic may be outdated by a couple of months at this point, being handed in in April this year.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 
-       Bennett, B. (2013) Nirvana Fallacy [Online] [accessed January 18th 2013] http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/135-nirvana-fallacy
-       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
-       Department of Health, (2012a.) About the Public Health Responsibility Deal [Online] [accessed September 30th 2012] http://responsibilitydeal.dh.gov.uk/about/
-       Department of Health, (2012b.) Our Partners [Online] [accessed September 30th 2012] http://responsibilitydeal.dh.gov.uk/our-partners/
-       Department of Health, (2012c.) Facts & Figures on Obesity [Online] [accessed January 14th 2012] http://www.dh.gov.uk/health/2012/04/obesityfacts/
-       Fisher, C. & Lovell, A. (2005) Business Ethics & Values p. 100 Essex: Pearson Education
-       Gilmore, A. B., Savell, E. & Collin, J. (2011) ‘Public Health, Corporations & the New Responsibility Deal: Promoting Partnerships with Vectors of Disease’ Journal of Public Health [Online] February 2nd  [accessed December 10th 2012] http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/1/2.full#ref-16
-       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  
-       Hughes, D. (2012.) Can the Government’s ‘Responsibility Deal’ Work? BBC. [Online] [accessed December 10th 2012] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12776161
-       IPSOS-MORI, (2012.) Whatever Happened to ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’? [Online] [accessed December 3rd 2012] http://www.ipsos-mori.com/newsevents/ca/1265/Whatever-happened-to-Corporate-Social-Responsibility.aspx
-       Kant, I (1785); translated by: Ellington, J. W. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals 3rd Ed. p. 30 Hackett: Indiana
-       Mars Foods UK, (2012.) Delivery Plans from Partner: Mars UK- F2. Salt Reduction [Online] [accessed November 25th 2012] http://responsibilitydeal2.dh.gov.uk/render.php?r=805
-       Mars Global, (2012.) Brands: Chocolate [Online] [accessed November 27th 2012] http://www.mars.com/global/brands/chocolate.aspx
-       Mercer, C. (2013) INTERVIEW: Responsibility Deal Food Chair Dr Susan Jebb Just Food. [Online] [accessed January 25th 2013] http://www.just-food.com/interview/responsibility-deal-food-chair-dr-susan-jebb_id121884.aspx
-       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
-       Reynolds, J. (2012) ‘Tesco & Mars Sign Up to Latest Wave of Responsibility Deal’ Marketing Magazine. [Online] 15th November [accessed November 25th 2012] http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/news/1160107/Tesco-Mars-sign-latest-wave-Responsibility-Deal/ 
-       The Corporation. (2003) Directed by M. Achbar. & J. Abbott. [DVD] Canada: Zeitgeist Films
-       Ibid.
-       Unilever, (2013.) Sustainable Living [Online] [accessed January 25th 2013] http://www.unilever.com/sustainable-living/
-       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

No comments:

Post a Comment