Ethical Product Designs and Ethical Corporate Behaviour: Missions of Marketing - Essay Example

Introduction So far it has been known that social responsibility is crucial due to the fact that competition is not intense enough to implement ethnical behaviour in the business sector (Rogers 2001). Moreover, consumers have unequal opportunity and there are several unreasonable conditions in marketing. Consumers in complex societies have numerous advantages (Doyle & Stern 2006). Among these are the kinds of information they can access, various product and brand preferences they have, some level of protection against harmful products and services, and legal choices if they want, and many more (Doyle & Stern 2006). Nevertheless, several of these advantages also can create difficulties that would confuse, if not completely put off, the consumer (Armstrong & Kotler 2006). Moreover, several marketing circumstances in complex society can be actually or economically detrimental, otherwise completely risky (Hooley, Saunders, Piercy, & Nicoulaud 2008). Possibly the most significant premise that is being made in this paper is that consumerism, consumer welfare, and marketing should not be viewed separately. In reality, if marketing performs its task in the community, and in the larger society, it will, basically, extend beyond the mission of the consumerism movement (Sims 2003). Moreover, only if consumer welfare is maximised in a society will marketing as a well-established institution be viewed as furnishing an important and legitimate role in society (Pride & Ferrel 2008). Treating this argument as a ‘given’ in this paper, the subsequent discussion attempt to analyse critically how marketers have responded to increasing consumer demand for ethical products and more ethical corporate behaviour with regard to corporate social responsibility (CSR). If the argument that consumers’ common welfare is well-supported by marketing, and, marketing has the capability of fulfilling such an objective, then the issue should be raised as to how such an objective can be realised (Lamb, Hair & McDaniel 2008). It has been argued that marketing practices are usually problematic. Somehow, the required objective in the society is shared fulfilment between society and marketing (Lazer & Kelley 1973). Nonetheless, because this is not an involuntary given, it is essential for the society to fulfil the needed purpose by turning to consumer protection, consumer information, and consumer education (Sargeant & Wymer 2007). Corporate Social Responsibility and Marketing It has been stated in marketing literature that consumers, generally, have unequal opportunity originally. But when this condition is accompanied by worsening circumstances in the market and with the weakness of particular consumer organisations, then the necessity for socially responsible marketing becomes quite obvious (Kerin, Hartley, & Rudelius 2003). A significant part of this socially responsible marketing is to create products that are ethical and consumer-friendly. The notion of consumer-friendliness has numerous aspects. But, generally, if a product gives the most favourable level of short-run and long-run gains for the consumer without harming other consumers, it could be regarded consumer friendly (Contreras 2004). This section examines particular aspects of marketers’ response to consumers’ increasing demand for ethical products, particularly of consumer-friendly product design. It is argued here that all products are not developed to be ethical or consumer-friendly. Although the product may be well-liked and be accepted well in the marketplace, it should not be regarded consumer friendly except if it gives sufficient consumer information, it was developed with some degree of consumer protection, and its attributes are such that the product gives the best possible level of short-run and long-run gains for the consumer without harming other consumers who will not use or purchase this product (Samil 1992: 118): Figure 1. Major Parts of Consumer-Friendly Products Figure 1 shows that there are three key parts of consumer-friendly products, namely, product design, product information, and consumer protection (Samil 1992: 118). Product Design Every product design is not automatically consumer friendly (Baker 2000). A number of the initial models of videocassette recorders (VCRs) were quite difficult to operate that one had to be especially informed or knowledgeable so as to record various TV shows in advance. In actual fact, it was very hard just to operate the VCR’s clock (Baker 2000). Rudimentary personal computers that declared user friendliness usually were the opposite (Mohr, Sengupta & Slater 2004). Likewise, several of the initial models of microwaves and several of the exceptionally advanced forms of dishwashers can be categorised as consumer unfriendly (Mohr, Sengupta & Slater 2004). Product design’s consumer friendliness lies on five definite standards: ‘simplicity, effectiveness, efficiency, integration, and storage’ (Samli 1992: 116). Simplicity is particularly essential for effective product use. It does not necessarily means that a product is good or that it satisfies certain utilities if it is complex. Consumer-friendly products should not be complicated to use or operate, to program, and to maintain (Anderson 1989). Effectiveness, on the other hand, is used to show the similarity between consumer needs and product design (Anderson 1989). To the point that the product fulfils particular consumer needs and demands well, that product is considered to be effective. Over time, as lifestyles and the society become more multifaceted, the effectiveness attribute is probable to become more crucial (Den Hond, De Bakker, & Neergaard 2007). Meanwhile, the product efficiency attribute transcends consumer friendliness and goes through the domain of environmental friendliness (Den Hond et al. 2007). Efficiency with regard to consumer friendliness contends with utilising least amounts of fuel and energy for the greatest amount of work (Gummesson 2008). Definitely obtaining 30 miles per gallon is more efficient or resourceful than a gas scoffer that gives only 10 miles per gallon. Washers, dryers, dishwashers, and other domestic devices are all related with efficiency (Gummesson 2008). If buying and using the product is fairly less difficult, then the product is considered consumer friendly (Doyle & Stern 2006). Furthermore, consumers use a wide variety of products. A product that is consumer-friendly is the one that complements a product system (Doyle & Stern 2006). This is the central idea underlying home entertainment showcases instead of VCRs, TVs, and others (Riahi-Belkaoui 1999). Designing a bathroom or kitchen for the aged with hand bars and specifically designed cupboards are also illustrations of integration (Zu 2008). When a product is off colour, out of proportion, out of harmony with regard to its operation with other domestic devices, or it does not complement the system of things in the house, or the individual, that product is not integrated and not consumer friendly (Zu 2008). And lastly, there are to particular features of storage. Primarily, being capable of keeping the product in a certain storage room in a chosen area in the house is crucial. If the product design does not fit particular standard storage layouts, it is not friendly (Pride & Ferrel 2008). Second, the storability of a product is linked to its durability (Besser 2002). Numerous consumer nondurables, such as groceries, semi durables, such as apparel, or durables, such as appliances, could be stored for definite periods of time, but internal or local climates may have a considerable effect on product storability (Besser 2002). For example, under ordinary situations a VCR may be stored for a significant period of time, but in more dusty and damp environments its life is curtailed significantly: ‘the more durable the product, the more storable it is, and therefore the more consumer-friendly it becomes’ (Samli 1992: 118). It should be do restated that the discussion thus far has been related exclusively to the physical attributes of product design. Nonetheless, there are two other especially crucial attributes of a product, namely, service and package (Boone & Kurtz 2008). The more technical or complicated the product is the higher is the need or demand for service. Besides installation, services for maintenance and performance improvement may be needed (Boone & Kurtz 2008). A product is consumer friendly if it has an easy access to service. It also should be highlighted that service quality in this case in particular improves the consumer-friendliness quality of the product. A product becomes more consumer-friendly if the service is of high quality (Contreras 2004). The product package is also a crucial product component. A product package’s consumer friendliness is linked to having the product appropriately protected, giving the consumer the needed product information through the packaging procedure, and, ultimately, having the package possibly present some quality of its own (Idowu & Filho 2008). This last component may be reusable wrapping, reusable containers, or a durable protective holder, among others. Information Needs The next element of consumer-friendly products is information about the product for the consumer, which several scholars refer to as ‘consumer information’ (Lamb, Hair & McDaniel 2008b). The two concepts are applied interchangeably (Kotler & Lee 2004). Figure 2 shows that there are nine consumer information about the product: ‘(1) economic information, (2) use information, (3) care information, (4) protective information, (5) maker identification, (6) country of origin, (7) replacement information, (8) parts of information, and (9) guarantee or warranty information’ (Samli 1992: 122). Figure 2. Consumer-Friendly Products’ Information Needs Economic information may involve unit price, total value, net savings, price comparison, price, and so on (Pride & Ferrel 2008). On the other hand, use information links to how the product should be operated or used so that it will generate optimal results with regard to performance or with regard to energy consumption, and others (Adkins 1999). Care information addresses the maintenance of product. By having knowledge on how to take care of the product, its quality of service and durability almost are guaranteed (Brassington & Pettitt 2006). Protective information mainly is linked to definite warnings about the use of the product. If the product is not used in the indicated way, it could be harmful; it could bring about health problems, use troubles, or other forms of setbacks (Brassington & Pettitt 2006). Maker identification is the logo of the manufacturer or the brand name. It fulfils a significant function in strengthening the present brand and corporate images. Fashioning the brand or product image market identification can fuel consumers’ product loyalty (Hooley et al. 2008). Country of origin is specifically essential in global marketing. By informing the origin of the product, the marketer is aiming to carry out specific quality views that will allow the country to trade its various products in the global market (Rogers 2001). Replacement information is distinctive of products that have to be restored. If the product has to be bought again or particular parts have to be renewed or refilled, this information is crucial for the proper use of the product by the consumer (Jonker & de Witte 2006). Parts information is linked to some extent to replacement information. If the product parts are defective or have to be replenished sometime, information regarding how and where they could be obtained is important for agreeable product use (Jonker & de Witte 2006). Finally, numerous products give information concerning guarantees or warranties that will boost the consumer trust in the product (Boone & Kurtz 2008). Moreover, by guaranteeing refund or replacement, the company also will render the product more satisfactory by lessening the danger concerning the unknown features of the product (Boone & Kurtz 2008). The channel or means through which the product information is circulated is an important aspect. There are several channels that will disseminate product information. The effectiveness in furnishing product information can be ascribed in part to these information vehicles (Bloom & Gundlach 2000). Among these are various label forms, supplementary information in the case, and the package (Bloom & Gundlach 2000). Labels are various means of placing information that is obliged by law about a particular product (Idowu & Filho 2008). For example, the Nutrition Labelling and Education Act in October 1990 was ratified. It obliges food product marketers to place information concerning the amount of nutrients, such as fat and salt (Idowu & Filho 2008). Moreover, as stated by this law, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is to supervise disease prevention claims and health information (Sargeant & Wymer 2007). There are other forms of labelling. Among these are care labels, warning labels, and quality and performance labels (Den Hond et al. 2007). The case is the next package wherein the product is placed. It gives essential information about product contents. It also may contain unit prices and price information (Den Hond et al. 2007). Inside the case, there could be supplementary information in the form of an information sheet or brochure. In more complex products such as medications, these brochures contain complete technical information (Mohr et al. 2004). Each includes information about the use, the contents, the side effects, etc., of a specific medication (Mohr et al. 2004). Consumer Protection Consumers cannot perhaps shield themselves from definite unknown risks of a product. In the severe example of thalidomide consumers could not perhaps have known that this sleeping pill would bring about defects in unborn infants (Brassington & Pettitt 2006). Nevertheless, all the incidences do not have to be as severe as this one. The level of product unfriendliness is linked to the extent of its negative or harmful effect (Brassington & Pettitt 2006). The more severe the backache, the greater is the consumer unfriendliness of the mattress. From the point of view of consumer protection, aspects of product consumer safety have to be regarded at the design phase (Armstrong & Kotler 2006). If the product is not appropriately designed, the consumer barely can be capable of protecting him/herself. It is not possible for individuals to save themselves from harm against harmful product effect with which they are not familiar with (Armstrong & Kotler 2006). Moreover, they essentially have no protection for such an incident (Kerin et al. 2003). Hence, it is important that the producer has a product that is safe and sound for consumers to utilise. Figure 3. A Simple Checklist for Consumer Safety Most Likely Least Likely Are there possible short-run side effects? 1 2 3 4 5 Are there possible long-run side effects? 1 2 3 4 5 Are there possible short-run direct harmful effects? 1 2 3 4 5 Are there possible long-run direct harmful effects? 1 2 3 4 5 Is there possible short-run serious danger to life? 1 2 3 4 5 Is there possible long-run serious danger to life? 1 2 3 4 5 as cited in Samil 1992: 123 The safety element of the product can be assessed by a string of questions (Samil 1992). Figure 3 provides such a string of questions. The expected impacts of the product prior to its introduction are evaluated based on their riskiness (Rogers 2001). Since these instances are not rather divided, a five-point level is applied for the evaluation process. Primarily, two issues, short-run and long-run, are linked to product side effects (Rogers 2001). Distinctively, the mattress that brings about a backache is contributing side effects. Currently, silicone breast implants have been criticised for bringing about cancer. Likewise, the product in due course may bring about allergies or anxieties, and so on (Jonker & de Witte 2006). Once more, the consumer protection factor of product design falls short. Definitely this long-term side effect is not fatal, but it might be a predicament for the consumer. Specific computers are declared to cause eye and back troubles sooner or later that also might be severe predicaments for the users (Mohr et al. 2004). Figure 3 shows that the effect may differ from trouble to damage and from damage to fatality. Apparently, the variations among these three levels of effect are not that definite; nonetheless, they should be taken into account independently at the product development phase (Samil 1992). Even though it may be hard to differentiate trouble from damaging effects, it is crucial to know that numerous products may bring about non-fatal damage. Many preservatives and chemicals that are used in preparing food seem to be bringing about different kinds of allergy (Sims 2003). The Goldfine Group asserts that a number of these allergies among kids are very strong that they make the kids’ identification uneducables, underachievers, or slow learners. The assertions are such that when these preservatives and chemical are eliminated from the diet of the kids, they obtain IQ points and undergo important behaviour change (Sims 2003). An incident in 1991 surfaced in the news. Specific kinds of silicone applied in breast implantation were asserted to be bringing about health problems (Kotler & Lee 2004). They could even bring about cancer. Once more, the product is not fairly fatal, but is bringing about a direct detrimental impact (Kotler & Lee 2004). Bon Vivant soup took the life of countless consumers because it brought about botulism. This was an abrupt life threat (Contreras 2004). On the other hand, asbestos is charged of bringing about a fatal lung disease called asbestosis. This malady apparently has a fatal effect in time. Alcohol and tobacco are also charged of bringing about fatal diseases in time (Contreras 2004). With regard to more sophisticated products, there have been assertions that radioactivity from particular microwaves and televisions, yet again, could be causing cancer (Sims 2003). As can be observed from these illustrations, products bring about different levels of threat to consumer health and welfare. In a socially responsible approach of marketing, these setbacks have to be mitigated before the product is distributed in the market. Applying a device such as the one in Figure 3, products that have a 12 or below score may be approved for launching; those that have an 18 or above score may be delayed and those that have 24 and above score may be discarded straight away (Samil 1992). Even though there are laws offering a definite level of consumer protection, these laws are barely wide-ranging and cannot include the huge number of consumer products. The laws are mostly linked to (Samil 1992) ‘(1) quantities, indicating measurements and weights of certain products; (2) qualities, dealing with safeness of certain food products; and (3) consumer safety relating to marketing products that do not comply with the safety requirements imposed by certain regulations’ (Samil 1992: 124). The laws are barely wide-ranging enough to safeguard the consumer from unidentified or unexpected harm. Obviously, part of the trouble is linked to timing (Sargeant & Wymer 2007). In several instances, the unexpected or unidentified setback will not arise until after several years of product use. In these instances, a firm may not be capable of practicing corporate social responsibility, but it may be quite reactive (Sargeant & Wymer 2007). Literature shows that there is definite behaviour of consumer complaint. This behaviour is categorised into three wide-ranging classifications (Samil 1992): ‘(1) redress seeking to remedy the situation directly or indirectly by going to the seller; (2) complaining to communicate dissatisfaction for reasons other than seeking remedy; and (3) personal boycott to discontinue purchase of the offending product’ (Samli 1992: 124). Even though the manufacturer or marketer can easily check these behaviours and react appropriately, there is another option that the marketer should apply (Brassington & Pettit 2006). In the case of fatal circumstances or in the presence of a severe damage to the consumer, the marketer basically does not have sufficient time merely to wait for the complaints of consumers and then react appropriately (Brassington & Pettit 2006). This form of reactive action would allow the company to identify some early signs of major setbacks. The firm, by being swift in its responsiveness, may be capable of preventing quite severe setbacks (Den Hond et al. 2007). Conclusions This paper analyses the issue of the key corporate social responsibility of marketing from an ethical consumerism point of view. The analysis first dealt with the confused condition of the consumer. This specific condition is brought about by the proliferation of choice, absence of information, and lack of capability on the part of the consumer to integrate present information. The situations become more severe for the consumer as problematic or unethical marketing procedures or practices are added into an already problematic scenario. Unethical marketing procedures can be identified in the domains of product design and advertising. It is argued in this paper that the consumerism movement remains forceful. This power, at least in part, is because of the failure of the marketing model to act out the way it ought to. From an idyllic point of view, it is in the best interest of marketing to deliver ethical products, higher quality of life, and consumer satisfaction. For such an objective to become fulfilled, there should be sufficient consume education, information, and protection. Devoid of these three antidotes, marketing as an institution of society, cannot be seen as fulfilling an important and legitimate function in improving society. Developing a consumer-friendly or ethical product is a foremost social responsibility of marketing. A socially responsible approach toward developing ethical products involves concerns about product design as well as the physical features of the product besides assessing product information and consumer protection attributes of the product. Once the packaging, physical, and service features of the product are dealt with, consumer protection should be taken into account. In this framework, the harmful side effects, harmful effects, or fatal effects of a product should be taken into account thoroughly and assessed methodically before the product is introduced in the marketplace. References Adkins, S. (1999) Cause Related Marketing, Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Anderson, J.W., Jr. . (1989) Corporate Social Responsibility: Guidelines for Top Management, New York: Quorum Books. Andreasen, A. R. (1997) Prescriptions for Theory-Driven Social Marketing Research: A Response to Goldberg's Alarms, Journal of Consumer Psychology , 189. Armstrong, G. & Kotler, P. (2006) Marketing: An Introduction, Prentice Hall. Baker, M. J. (2000) Marketing Theory: A Student Text, Cengage Learning Business Press. Besser, T. L. (2002) The Conscience of Capitalism: Business Social Responsibility to Communities, Westport, CT: Praeger. Bloom, P.N. & Gundlach, G. (2000) Handbook of Marketing and Society, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Boone, L.E. & Kurtz, D.L. (2008) Contemporary Marketing, South-Western College Publishers. Brassington, F. & Pettitt, S. (2006) Principles of Marketing, London: Prentice Hall. Contreras, M. (2004) Corporate Social Responsibility in the Promotion of Social Development, Inter-American Development Bank. Den Hond, F., De Bakker, F.G.A. & Neergaard, P. (2007) Managing Corporate Social Responsibility in Action, London: Ashgate Pub. Co. Doyle, P. & Stern, P. (2006) Marketing Management and Strategy, Prentice Hall. Gummesson, E. (2008) Total Relationship Marketing: Marketing Management, Relationship Strategy, CRM, and a New Dominant Logic for the Value-Creating Network Economy, Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Hooley, G., Saunders, J., Piercy, N.F. & Nicoulaud, B. (2008) Marketing Strategy and Competitive Positioning, London: Prentice Hall. Idowu, S.O. & Filho, W.L. (2008) Global Practices of Corporate Social Responsibility, London: Springer. Jonker, J. & de Witte, M. (2006) Management Models for Corporate Social Responsibility, Netherlands: Springer. Kerin, R.A., Hartley, S.W. & Rudelius, W. (2003) Marketing: The Core, New York: McGraw-Hill. Kotler, P. & Lee, N. (2004) Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing the Most Good for your Company and your Cause, Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. Lamb, C.W., Hair, J.F. & McDaniel, C. (2008a) Marketing, Mason, USA: South-Western College Pub. Lamb, C.W., Hair, J.F., & McDaniel, C. (2008b) Essentials of Marketing, Mason, USA: South-western College Publishers. Lazer, W. & Kelley, E.J. (1973) Social Marketing: Perspectives and Viewpoints, Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin. Mohr, J.J., Sengupta, S. & Slater, S. (2004) Marketing of High-Technology Products and Innovations, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Pride, W.M. & Ferrel, A. (2008) Marketing, Mason, USA: South-Western College Pub. Riahi-Belkaoui, A. (1999) Corporate Social Awareness and Financial Outcomes, Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Rogers, S. C. (2001) Marketing Strategies, Tactics, and Techniques: A Handbook for Practitioners, Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Samil, A. C. (1992) Social Responsibility in Marketing: A Proactive and Profitable Marketing Management Strategy, Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Sargeant, A. & Wymer, W. (2007) The Routledge Companion to Nonprofit Marketing, New York: Routledge. Sims, R. R. (2003) Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility: Why Giants Fall, Westport, CT: Praeger. The Market for Virtue: the Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility (2006) Multinational Monitor, 37+. Zu, L. (2008) Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Restructuring and Firm's Performance: Empirical Evidence from Chinese Enterprises, Italy: Springer. Read More