Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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 in
a morally acceptable fashion. Although marketers
typically engage in mild deception or take artistic
license when marketing goods and services, these sorts
of practices are far more morally troublesome when
used to market good corporate conduct. I argue that
although mild deception is not substantially worrisome with respect to the marketing of most goods
and services, it is a far greater moral blunder to use
such methods in the marketing of good corporate
character. These erode trust and demonstrate a lack
of adequate respect for the moral good. In light of
these concerns, I suggest that such practices must be
re-examined when applied to the marketing of corporate character and good conduct. Finally, I develop
a revised set of ethical guidelines that are needed in
order 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 will
not go unnoticed by consumers, investors, and
members of local communities. Whether it is a
line of acknowledgement in a brochure for Earth
Mary Lyn Stoll is presently an Associate Professor of
Philosophy at Minnesota State University, Mankato.
Her research focuses upon ethical theory and applied
ethics. Her work examines the nature of corporate moral
agency and the potential for development of corporate
virtue.
Day or a national advertising campaign, companies want consumers to know about the good
that 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 deeds
and this in turn encourages other companies to
follow suit in giving back to the community.
Companies that publicly proclaim their desire to
be a positive force in the community will also
be more likely to face continued public scrutiny,
and this will in turn provide a further incentive
to avoid wrongdoing. In another sense, however,
advertising concerning corporate donations can
be morally problematic. When a company spends
far more on advertising their good deeds than it
spends on the deeds themselves, it is questionable whether or not such actions are truly
morally praiseworthy and whether or not this
sort of advertising is unacceptably misleading.
Although advertising campaigns are generally less
than forthright concerning all of the relevant
facts, mild deception in marketing corporate
character is a much more serious offense. When
advertising campaigns concerning corporate
philanthropy are selectively advanced as a means
of reacting to negative public perceptions
resulting from prior misdeeds, this too raises
serious ethical concerns. At the same time,
however, the benefits of positive publicity for
good deeds must not be undercut as an incentive for companies to engage in morally acceptable behavior. A set of guidelines for dealing with
the marketing of good corporate conduct is
needed in order to deal with these sorts of issues.
Thus, standard views of marketing ethics must be
adjusted to deal with the moral peculiarities of
marketing good deeds. In this paper, I will begin
122
Lippke further objects to standard mass marketing practices in so far as such practices allow
advertisers to define the ideal of the good life
by manipulating our desires and by exploiting our
insecurities rather than allowing individuals the
mental space to think critically for themselves
about what is constitutive of the good life.
According to Lippke, at best the mass onslaught
of advertising to which we are subjected distracts
us from the things that truly matter to us such
as developing friendships or dealing with personal
flaws and insecurities in a clearheaded way. At
worst, mass advertising exploits our insecurities
in order to increase sales and deprives us collectively of critical thinking tools needed to make
free and well-reasoned decisions. Thus, Lippke
123
124
125
126
127
128
IV. Conclusion
I have argued that a certain level of deception
or less than forthright presentation of relevant
facts by those marketing products may not be
particularly harmful so long as individuals are
aware of such practices and able to make wellreasoned decisions concerning the effects of such
campaigns upon their purchasing decisions. But
such practices are much more serious when used
to promote purported good corporate conduct.
While it is not wrong, per se, for a company to
market and benefit from moral praise for good
corporate conduct, it is wrong for companies to
use the values associated with the moral good and
with right action as a mere means to gaining
greater profit. Deception with respect to corporate character is more problematic since: (a) It is
a far greater omission and a far greater attack
upon the institution of trust as such to lie about
facts relevant to determining the moral praiseworthiness of an action or institution than to
engage in deception with respect to marketing a
good or service. (b) This practice undermines
moral motivation for companies to actually
engage in right action rather than merely
appearing to merit moral praise. Further, (c) It
is wrong to use something of the utmost value,
such as the moral good or right action, as a mere
means to something of lesser value such as profit.
In order for companies to engage in the marketing of good corporate conduct in a morally
acceptable fashion, companies must not produce
a barrage of ads that encourage faulty reasoning
and must stem practices of selective presentation
References
Adbusters: Journal of the Mental Environment: 2001, 36,
16.
Arrington R.: 1982, Advertising & Behavior
Control, Journal of Business Ethics 1, 312.
Carson, T.: 2001, Deception and Withholding
Information in Sales, Business Ethics Quarterly
11(2), 275306.
Cohan, J. A.: 2001, Towards a New Paradigm in the
129
Department of Philosophy,
Minnesota State University, Mankato,
Mankato, MN 56001,
U.S.A.
E-mail: mary.stoll@mnsu.edu,
stollml@yahoo.com