The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1754-243X.

htm

A transcendent code of ethics for marketing professionals

Dinah Payne and Milton Pressley
University of New Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop a single code of ethics that could be used regardless of the venue or specialty of the marketing professional. The paper rst provides a literature review of research in the areas of ethics pertaining to marketing professionals. Then a review of a wide variety of codes of business ethics, marketing ethics, model codes, and professional ethics produces the idea that, while there are some differences in how the codal principles are presented, there are sufcient similarities in the codes principles of professional conduct to merit the consideration of a single code of marketing ethics one that can be used regardless of the venue or specialty of the marketing professional. Design/methodology/approach The paper introduces a broad literature review followed by the development of a transcendent code of ethics for all marketers. Findings Using the above as well as: historically and more broadly known theories of ethics, and currently-used codes of professional marketing ethics, including those from the American Marketing Association (AMA), the American Association of Advertising Agencies (AAAA), and the Sales and Marketing Executives International (SMEI), the authors make an attempt to determine the most prominent, efcacious principles of ethics and to shape a single code of professional conduct for marketing students, educators and practitioners regardless of their area of specialty. Research limitations/implications The proposed code is subject to debate and will likely not be the model eventually used. The authors hope that the code proposed will stimulate further research, discussion and formulation. Practical implications A single code of ethics that could be utilized by anyone confronted with an ethical marketing issue would be useful in easing the difculties associated with challenging ethical dilemmas in marketing. Social implications Drawing on traditional frames of ethics and combining those principles with principles found in the marketing ethics literature, the authors generate a single code of ethics that not only marketers can use, but that others in society can also identify with and feel condence in thus alleviating concerns of mistrust or misunderstanding between those marketing products and services and the stakeholders in the society in which those products and services are being marketed. Originality/value No transcendent code of marketing ethics currently exists. The three most prominent are unique to their elds each leaving out portions necessary to be transcendent. Thus, the proposed code is original and has the practical social implication values noted above. Keywords Ethics, Marketing, Business ethics, Codes of ethics, Marketing ethics, Model codes, Professional ethics Paper type Conceptual paper

A transcendent code of ethics

55

Introduction This article is an attempt to provide a brief review of the most prominent and salient research in the areas of business ethics, codes of ethics, marketing ethics, model codes, and professional ethics, with a view to development of a single code of ethics that could be used regardless of the venue or specialty of the marketing professional. This code of ethics will be derived from the thoughts/principles found in the literature review, including historically and more broadly known and valued theories of ethics.

International Journal of Law and Management Vol. 55 No. 1, 2013 pp. 55-73 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1754-243X DOI 10.1108/17542431311303822

IJLMA 55,1

56

Further, we will review and include salient portions of the codes of three marketing professionals organizations: the American Marketing Association (AMA), the American Association of Advertising Agencies (AAAA), and the Sales and Marketing Executives International (SMEI). The development of a single code of ethics that could be utilized by anyone confronted with an ethical marketing issue would be useful, not only in terms of sparking more debate and discussion on ethical marketing standards, but, also, perhaps in easing the difculties associated with challenging ethical dilemmas in marketing. Working towards the development of a single code of ethics, the authors also utilize and/or incorporate ideas derived from examinations of the needs for marketing ethics standards and the profession of marketing itself regarding the dilemmas marketers confront and the stakeholders who are affected by marketing decisions. Functions of professional codes of ethics are also examined to assure that, whatever the codal provisions are, they will serve the marketers who use them well. Finally, drawing on traditional frames of ethics and combining those principles with principles found in the marketing ethics literature, the authors were able to generate a single code of ethics that not only marketers can use, but that others in society can also identify with and feel condence in thus alleviating concerns of mistrust or misunderstanding between those marketing products and services and the stakeholders in the society in which those products and services are being marketed. Why this effort? The Hunt and Vitell (1986, 2006) Theory of Ethics, which, on paper, appears to be a potentially over-complicated model to implement, provided the spark for the current effort. The original model was developed for the use of marketing professionals, professors teaching marketing ethics and general business ethicists. The 2006 article focused on the value of using normative ethical theory in developing ethical mores, whether the elements of the original Hunt-Vitell model were measureable and whether this theory can be used to teach marketing and general business ethics. It could be considered a quite complicated model, as could others (Brinkman, 2002; Kennedy and Lawton, 1993). There are many other frameworks or constructs, as well, to not only describe the process of ethical (or unethical) decision making, but that also provide guidance in the form of positive statements to assist those confronted by ethical issues. The Hunt-Vitell model is excellent in many ways, not the least of which is that it has provided fodder for enormous amounts of research, both empirical and theoretical. The difculty, however, with the model is its complicated structure. The model has 32 elements and 30 causal connections. Our concern with the model as a really useful tool for the resolution of marketing ethics problems is twofold. First, the complicated nature of the model might be intimidating to potential users of the model, with the result that it will indeed not be referenced, obviating its own existence. And, second, for the business professional brave enough to attempt the models use, our concern is that those who are not familiar with ethical debate would not have sufcient background information on some of the models 32 elements to make effective and/or efcient use of the construct effectively. It is satisfying to know that others, with known, well-respected reputations, supported by years of their own and others empirical research, are so interested in the eld of business ethics and marketing ethics in particular. It would be even better if

any marketing professional, in any area of specialty, could reference a single source of ethics that she/he could understand and apply without corresponding reference to the complicated Hunt-Vitell model or those presented by Brinkman (2002), Kennedy and Lawton (1993), or any of the others and all they represent. Those sources have an enormously valuable place in teaching and learning among marketing educators, students, and professionals in the initial stages of inquiry. However, a single source for all stakeholders may be efcacious in bringing to the public and to marketing professionals a single message or image marketing professionals have high professional standards of ethics and abide by them. Existing models of marketing ethics Many models have been developed to aid the decision-maker confronted by a marketing ethics dilemma. The Hunt and Vitell (1986, 2006) model is divided into two kinds of categories: the substantive and the procedural. The substantive category include elements that form the basis for the decision in ethical principle, such as religion, the political and legal systems, formal and informal codes of conduct, ones value and belief systems, the strength of moral character, the level of moral development, and ones ethical sensitivity. The procedural category includes elements relating to the mechanisms by which the decisions are made: the perception of the ethical problem, potential solutions, and associated consequences. The model is used by uniting deontological norms and evaluations with teleological evaluations, all based on the substantive and procedural elements listed above, to achieve ethical judgments, judgments that lead to action. Hopefully, the utilization of model will yield moral judgments that can be justied, morally, and practically. Laczniak (1983) and Laczniak and Murphy (1991) proposed two sets of rules for making justiable moral judgments. First, their rules of thumb are very standard in terms of popular ideals of ethics. There are ve such rules. The golden rule is simple: treat others the way one wants to be treated oneself. The second rule is the utilitarian approach: the morally correct course of action is the one that provides the greatest good for the greatest number or the least harm for the greatest number of those affected. The Kantian analysis, the third rule of thumb, stipulates that the morally correct action is one that is universally consistent. The professional ethic approach dictates that the reception by the public of behavior is a guide to what is morally acceptable or not; actions should only be done if they would be deemed proper by disinterested professional colleagues. Finally, the TV test was articulated as Would I feel comfortable explaining to a national TV audience why I took this action (Laczniak, 1983, p. 7)? The second set of rules of making ethical marketing decisions proposed by Laczniak and Laczniak and Murphy is a more general theory of marketing ethics. This more general theory was presented as a series of questions, some of which were deontological in nature, while some were teleological. Deontologically-oriented questions included whether a political/social law would be violated and whether a moral law would be violated. Teleological questions included were whether evil results were likely to accrue as a result of taking the action and whether others would be better or worse off as a result of the action being taken. Brinkmans (2002) model is based on professional roles, pertinent professional codes, professional and business norms, and social and economic environments. Standards of morally correct behavior are a result of interrelated decisional processes

A transcendent code of ethics

57

IJLMA 55,1

58

found in the socio-economic, socio-cultural, and natural environments. The professional environment is prescribed professional and business practices. The natural environment is represented by the more or less role-free, individual psychological environment. Into this decision making process, the moral climate must be considered: existing legal and professional structures, organizational rules and procedures, and personal morality. All these elements must be considered to make morally defensible business, and more specically marketing, decisions. Combined with the moral climate, professional codes and roles, and morally relevant behavior unite to resolve moral conicts successfully. Another approach with a fairly complicated structure was that provided by Kennedy and Lawton (1993), who took the approach that interorganizational factors are most important in determining the moral correctness of the rms behavior. The key element in this model is uncertainty: the greater the rms environmental uncertainty is, the more likely the rm will engage in unethical behavior. Other elements in this model include resource control, coercive, reward and expert power, and strategic vulnerability. Again, these models are complex, not necessarily in the number of elements used to represent the moral decision making process, but certainly in terms of assessment of whether one is doing the right thing or not. Other authors have generated frameworks upon which to base moral analysis, as well. Holley (1987) proposed three major tenets for marketing ethics. First, the parties to the transaction, the buyer and seller, must be sufciently informed regarding the goods/services being sold and the price at which they are sold. The parties to the transaction should not be forced into the transaction in any way, even through the reduction or elimination of alternative transactions. Finally, both the buyer and seller should be capable of making rational decisions about the transaction. Robin and Reidenbach (1987) used deontology and utilitarianism as the bases of their work to develop a strategy to effectively implement marketing ethics into the rms real-life strategic marketing planning. Kant (1964) and Rawls (1971) were cited as providing deontological frameworks that a rational person could use to make good moral decisions about any ethical dilemma, not just those found in the eld of marketing. The basic idea here is that all rules should be constructed such that everyone, including the rule-maker, would be willing to be bound by that rule. It would make no difference who the rule-maker was or who would be required to follow the rule, as no rule would be anathema to any following it. The utilitarian approach is one based on the consequences of the action: the alternative that provides the greatest good for the greatest number or the least harm for the greatest number is the appropriate alternative. OBoyle and Dawson (1992) based their six-pronged framework on principles of equivalence, distributive, and contributive justice. Their principles include concepts of accountability, honesty, service, and autonomy. Further, OBoyle and Dawson would require the highest professional standards to be formulated and followed and would allow sanctions to be placed for failure to follow such standards. Gaumnitz and Lere (2002) identied nine categories of principle in their review of fteen codes of ethics. Condentiality was described as an obligation not to disclose or use condential information, while honesty and integrity included obligations not to make misrepresentation through commission or omission. Responsibilities to employees/clients, the third category of codal edict, included concepts of good faith and commitment. Obligations to the profession incorporated ideals of support for the

professional society, as well as its goals to maintain competence and garner improvement of the eld. The fth category was that of independence, or the obligation to avoid conicts of interest. Category 6 stipulated that marketers are to obey the law, while category 7, closely related, required that the marketer not commit discreditable or harmful acts. The category of social values comprised the ideals of public interest and non-discrimination. Finally, marketers should resolve ethical conicts in light of fairness and honesty. The following list is a broad summary of the basic ideals found in these sources, as well as in many others: (1) Deontological values of duty: . The golden rule. . Kants categorical imperative. . Use of reason in decision making. . Use of Aristotelian ethics. (2) Recognition of duties owed to stakeholders. (3) Teleological constructs: . Development of possible/permissible alternatives. . Adherence to efciency. . Utility of efforts. . Service to society/stakeholders. (4) Legal and moral accountability to society/stakeholders: . Public acknowledgement of behavior. (5) Honesty/integrity. (6) Autonomous decision-making ability. (7) Adherence to ones own norms of ethical behavior: . Respect for religious belief systems. (8) Adherence to ones rms standards of ethical behavior: . Respect for ones rms and co-workers interests. (9) Adherence to highest standards of professional conduct. (10) Adherence to formal/professional codes of conduct. (11) Submission to appropriate sanction of wrongful professional conduct. (12) Condentiality in relationships. (13) Do no harm. Thus, the current proposal is to make use of the vast array of materials associated with marketing ethics reviewed here, to generate a model code of ethics for students of marketing ethics, marketing educational professionals and those actively engaged in the business of marketing products or services to consumers. To do so, several predicate questions must be asked and answered. Among these questions are: what is the need for marketing standards of ethics; who is affected by marketing decisions with ethical overtones; is the eld of marketing a profession, which should properly have a professional code of ethics? Further, upon what constructs would a single code

A transcendent code of ethics

59

IJLMA 55,1

of marketing be based? How similar would a code founded on basic concepts of ethics be compared to basic codes of business conduct regardless of eld of study/practice? Need for marketing ethics standards The rst question in progression and in importance is whether there is a need for marketing ethics. The resounding answer is an emphatic yes. Murphy and Laczniak (1981, p. 251) concluded that the function within business rms most often charged with ethical abuse is marketing. According to Hensel and Dubinsky (1986, p. 64), marketers may be perceived to be lacking in ethics because their actions are deemed to be at the outer limits of what societal standards would be:
[. . .] many marketing activities are in a gray area with respect to how they are viewed by segments of society (e.g. the use of bribery as a source of marketing inuence in international business).

60

Lund (2000) found that, on the contrary, marketing professionals tended toward making more ethical than unethical decisions, but that they appeared to be using an evaluation process imbedded in the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of the activities, rather than whether the activities themselves were right or wrong. Vitell et al. (2003), citing Tsalikis and Fritzsche (1989), suggested that marketing is the functional area in business that is most subject to social criticism and surmise that that makes the eld of marketing most suitable to socially responsible business practices: the implication is that in implementing socially responsible business practices, society will look more favorably on marketing activities. Marketing professionals, dilemmas, and stakeholders Marketers are without doubt members of a profession. Ethicist De George (1999) identied several characteristics that mark a profession. Professionals are full time employed in their chosen eld, earning compensation for expertise, and are expected to maintain higher professional standards for themselves. Professionals garner a higher level of prestige and respect as a result of their specialized knowledge. Associated with this respect is the idea that professionals are granted a higher level of autonomy regarding admission into and regulation of the profession. Many average consumers believe that marketing is only and simply advertising, failing to appreciate that the Four Ps of marketing exist. Their ignorance, though certainly reasonable, highlights that the eld of marketing is clearly populated by professionals in the areas of research, development, pricing, distribution, and promotion: the experts in the elds of marketing. The take-away point here is that, as professionals, marketers have specialized knowledge and a corresponding heightened responsibility to use their knowledge to the benet of society, as well as to the benet of their rms bottom line. Thus, the development of a workable code of ethics for marketing professionals is clearly an end to be desired. Chonko and Hunt (2000) identied six ethical problems faced by marketers most often: bribery, fairness, honesty, pricing strategy, product strategy, and personnel decisions. Any code of ethics, whether a more informal one derived from ones religious or educational background or a more formal one derived from, for example, a professional code of ethics, should address these issues. Chonko and Hunts literature review spans decades of work concerning the most troublesome of ethical quandaries

for marketers. Baumhart (1961) found that the majority of ethical challenges in business are associated with marketing, including bribery, pricing issues, dishonest advertising, and cheating the customer. Other marketing ethics issues include blame passing and authorized rule violations (Akaah and Lund, 1994), the use of false information (Dawson, 1997), and inequitable treatment of advertising suppliers, inter alia (Hunt and Chonko, 1987). The list goes on and is a long one; it only serves to emphasize that a code of ethics that all these professionals can turn to at a moments notice and nd a useful set of principles, based in well known ethical principle, is a desirable end. It is appropriate to address the possible stakeholders that may be impacted by marketing decisions, both ethical and less so. A stakeholder is any individual, group, organization, or institution that can affect, as well as be affected by, an individuals, groups, organiztions, or institutions policy or policies (Wood-Harper et al., 1996, p. 9). For our purposes, stakeholders of marketing decisions include, according to Lund (2000), those involved in the exchange process: organizational members, customers, competitors, and the general public. These are described as parties to whom rights are given and responsibilities owed. Also acknowledging the concept of rights and responsibilities or duties as a denitive factor, Chonko and Hunt (2000) identied stakeholders as customers, the marketing professional him/herself, society as a whole and subordinates. Vitell et al. (2003) marked customers and special interest groups, as well as those internal to the rm and its supply chain, as being impacted by the moral correctness of the marketing decision. Finally, Gaumnitz (2002), citing Langlois and Schlegelmilch (1990), identied stakeholders as employees, the community and environment, customers, shareholders, suppliers, contractors, political liaisons, and those involved in research and development. Finally, marketing codes of ethics list stakeholders. The AMA (2011) code of ethics includes customers, employee, investors, peers, channel members, regulators, and the host community. The AAAA (2011) list clients, the public, the media they use and each other. The Sales and Marketing Executives International Code of Ethics (SMEICE) offers customer, suppliers, colleagues, competitors, governmental agencies and the public as its stakeholders (SMEICE, 2011). Figure 1 is a representation of the pressures felt by the marketing professional faced with an ethical dilemma: each of these groups has rights and are owed responsibilities by the marketing professional. The number of stakeholders alone is sufcient to make making ethical marketing decisions a challenge. But, to compound the problem, each stakeholder may have different rights and be owed different responsibilities. Functions of professional ethics codes Both sets of literature, general business and marketing in particular, address the need to develop codes of ethics. A preliminary question to the determination of the functions of codes is what is a code of ethics? A code of ethics has been dened as written, distinct, and formal documents which consist of moral standards used to guide employee or corporate behavior (Schwartz, 2001, p. 248). Further, a code has been dened as a visible and explicit articulation of professional norms or a written statement of guiding principles of right and wrong (Frankel, 1989; Molander, 1987). For business ethics in general, Raiborn and Payne (1990) and Payne and Landry (2005) suggested that companies establish codes for a variety of reasons. Among these reasons are a desire to positively affect the rms stakeholders by making more ethical decisions, to calm public concern about the ethicality of decisions made and to

A transcendent code of ethics

61

IJLMA 55,1
Management End-Users of Products

Personal Standards of Employees/ Marketers

Shareholders of all firms involved

62
Customers and Clients

Employees of all firms involved

The Community

Suppliers

MARKETING PROFESSIONALS

Society At Large

The Marketing Profession The Environment

Current and Future Financial Backers of Projects Competitors Governmental Regulatory Agencies Professional Associations

Figure 1. Marketing professionals stakeholders

Source: Adapted from Payne and Landry (2005)

communicate the rms decisions to assure stakeholders that ethics have been considered during the decision making process. Frankel (1989) provided a comprehensive list of eight functions of codes of ethics. Codes provide group guidance in ambiguous circumstances, as well as a being a basis of understanding for public expectation and evaluation. The sense of commonality among members of the organization or profession can be established or strengthened by a code. The establishment and utilization of a code can enhance the organizations or professions reputation in the community. Codes can also preserve well-established professional practices. When there is a question as to the morality of an action, the code can help in three ways: it can prevent unethical behavior by the potential imposition of sanctions for wrongdoing, it can provide a defense mechanism for embattled individuals confronted with pressure to do the wrong thing and it can aid in the adjudication of disputes arising out of arguably unethical behavior. In the marketing specic literature, many authors have cited reasons for developing codes of ethics, which reasons also serve to reveal the functions of codes of ethics. Laczniak and Murphy (1991) indicated that codes help vitalize the rm and are perceived to be the most effective way to encourage ethical corporate behavior. OBoyle and Dawson (1992) stated that codes promote the common good, for the professional, as well as for society. Maes et al. (1998) found that codes are designed to inuence employee behavior and can be used to manage change more effectively. Codes also require a higher standard of professional conduct than the law. Chonko and Hunts (2000) literature

review found that codes are used to inuence behavior by raising the consciousness of the ethical element in the decision-making process. Codes are used to guide behavior and add validation to the moral decisions made. Brinkman (2002) suggested that codes aid in conict handling and addressing acceptable or unacceptable behavior. Valentine and Barnett (2002) suggested that codes are utilized by organizations to curry community recognition, to conform to the law, to internalize rm values and to prevent unacceptable behavior of its members. Dobson (2003) suggested that codes provide guidelines for behavior. Vitell et al. (2003, p. 79) also provided a good reason to develop codes of professional conduct: organizations can positively inuence the moral thinking of their employees by providing a clear set of ethical values and policies, and enforcing these policies. A review of the general business ethics code functions with the functions of marketing codes of ethics reveals that the reasons to develop codes and codes functions are similar enough between the two to promote the idea that one single code of ethics should work regardless of the eld of business at issue. It is important to understand that an innite amount of research by innumerable authors will not force the development or adherence to a code of ethics. Akaah and Riordan (1989), with many others, have suggested that codes will only be as effective as they are enforced. Akaah and Riordan (1989, p. 119) found that if these codes are to enhance ethical standards, they must not only exist, but also be enforced [. . .] Although we have not chosen this article as a forum for debate about that issue, it would be foolish to ignore it as a real challenge to the development, implementation and daily use of a code of ethics. Our approach is that if you build it, they will come: only if a rm or profession develops a code, can anyone make use of it. If the code is not developed or implemented by a rm or a profession, it cannot be used, even by good faith decision makers desirous of sound moral guidance. Again, the point is that codes of ethics must be workable codes that any well educated marketer, or even a poorly educated one, should be able to pick up and reference when assaulted by a marketing dilemma. The code must exist, it must be enforced and it must be usable by the average seeker of aid for an ethical marketing question. Dening the common concepts of morality The effort to generate a single code of marketing ethics requires an understanding and comparison of the myriad marketing ethics codes and general codes of ethics. If there is sufcient commonality between the two, as there should be as marketers are merely a more specically focused type of business person, then we should be able to nd principles and protocols that would work for both the marketing specic professional and the more generic business professional or even the average person. We have reviewed the basic ideals proposed in a variety of marketing ethics codes; we must now dene the concepts of ethical interest to the broader based business professional: values, ethics, and specialized ethics, such as business ethics and marketing ethics. Any discussion of ethics, whether general or business, must begin with the concept of values, which can be dened in different ways. According to Velasquez (1999), values are views expressed as statements describing objects or features of objects that have worth. Values may also be dened as socially or personally desirable elements (Joyner and Payne, 2002; Joyner et al., 2002). Andrews (1987) and Mason (1992) dene values as the core set of beliefs and principles deemed to be desirable (by groups) of individuals. Values originate from ones community and culture and aid in a persons

A transcendent code of ethics

63

IJLMA 55,1

64

determination of the important considerations in their decision making processes. Adler (1999) dened values as the amalgamation of the learning that occurs from childhood as a result of interaction with family, friends, church, and school. When values are added to attitudes, beliefs and behavior, a continuous spiral of values, culture, behaviors, etc. is formed (Payne and Landry, 2005). According to the AMA (2011) code of ethics, values represent the collective conception of what communities nd desirable, important and morally proper. Values are also the criteria upon which basis we evaluate our own actions (Figure 2). In this study, we are concerned with the spirit of the law (ethics, values, morality), rather than the letter of the law (statutes, ordinances, and administrative agency regulations). Promulgated laws are designed to reect a societys attitudes and desires about the state of acceptable activity(ies) of its people, not necessarily what is morally right or wrong. Crane and Matten (2004) suggest that the law is a denition of the minimum acceptable standards of behavior. Many issues confronted by business are not legal issues, but rather moral issues. That the law and ethics are not necessarily the same thing is recognized and this recognition prompts the need to fully understand and be able to utilize workable codes of ethics. Relative to business ethics, several authors dened ethics as an understanding of what is right and fair conduct or behavior (Carroll, 1991; Freeman and Gilbert, 1988). Ethics is the study of morality (Velasquez, 1999, p. 7). Making moral or ethical judgments implies that the decision-maker is concerned with the moral rightness or wrongness of the decision, rather than the legality of the decision. Noted business ethicist De George (1999) dened business ethics, as well, as the interaction of ethics and business is business ethics, a eld of special ethics. Business ethics are principles utilized to resolve ethical dilemmas arising from engaging in business transactions. Velasquez (1999, p. 13), another prominent business ethicist, has dened business ethics in similar terms:
(B)usiness ethics is a specialized study of moral right and wrong. It concentrates on moral standards as they apply particularly to business policies, institutions, and behaviors [. . .] (B)usiness ethics is a study of moral standards and how these apply to the systems and organizations through which modern societies produce and distribute goods and services.
Beliefs

Values Behaviors

Figure 2. Spiral of developing culture

Attitudes

Source: Payne (2003)

In the eld of marketing ethics, a number of authors have dened ethics. Robin and Reidenbach (1987, p. 45) dene business ethics as requir(ing) that the organization or individual behave in accordance with the carefully thought-out rules of moral philosophy. Writing about marketing professionals ethics, Lund (2000), Akaah and Riordan (1989), and Akaah (1992), all citing Taylor (1975), dene ethics in terms of the nature and grounds of morality involving judgments, standards, and rules of conduct. Marketing ethics is derived from the marketing professionals relationship with the parties in the exchange process, including a variety of stakeholders. Brinkman (2002) provided both a broader denition of ethics, as well as a more narrowly focused denition of marketing ethics. He suggests that marketing ethics is an extension of the basic denition of ethics. His categorization of marketing ethics supports the proposal that general business ethics are a suitable base for constructing a single marketing ethics code that everyone in the elds of marketing could utilize:
Marketing ethics examines systematically marketing and marketing morality, related to 4P-issues such as unsafe products, deceptive pricing, deceptive advertising or bribery, discrimination in distribution [. . .] If business ethics as an academic eld is about moral criticism and self-criticism of business and business education, this would include criticism and self-criticism of marketing as well, as its most out-going and aggressive part, with its specic tools and tricks and its specic acceptable and unacceptable choices and consequences (p. 159).

A transcendent code of ethics

65

Stoll (2002), citing Holley (1987), suggested that marketing ethics includes at least three major tenets. The buyer and seller must be adequately informed as to the transaction. Neither the buyer nor the seller should experience any force in engaging in the transaction and they must both be capable of engaging in rational thought. Precepts of marketing ethics denition are characterized by knowing, willing and rational behavior, characteristics to be seen in other very basic and well-known ethics standards (Kant, 1964). Again, the greater part of the literature here addresses marketing professionals, rather than a transcendent approach to all business professionals, regardless of profession. Established frameworks of business ethics The authors used several frameworks as the basis for a determination that societal and marketing ethics are similar enough to be used to develop a uniform code of ethics of business people and marketing professionals: the Kantian (Kant, 1969) analyses, the approach taken by Raiborn and Payne (1990), and the Aristotelian virtues. These approaches are classied as deontological approaches to ethics, which are duty-based: an action is morally right or wrong based on the action itself. The Kantian analysis (Kant, 1969) can be simplied into three questions, the answers to which must all be positive for a moral duty to exist. The questions are: is the action universally consistent, does the action respect the person acted upon as inherently valuable and does the action respect the freedom of the person acted upon. Using the example of non-job based discrimination as a business practice, one answers the questions in a negative way, with the conclusion that discrimination on the basis of non-job related criteria is immoral. First, would the actor accept the possibility that he himself would be discriminated against for a non-job related reason: no, the rational person would not accept such treatment. Second, does non-job related discrimination value the prospective employee as inherently valuable? No, discrimination is a blind

IJLMA 55,1

66

response to non-job related criteria, making the inherent merits of the prospective employee immaterial to the decision maker. Finally, the freedom of the prospective employee is forfeited without his acceptance: the non-job related criteria are criteria that are a part of the person, like race or ethnic origin, and cannot and should not be changed to satisfy someone elses notions of what is acceptable. Thus, the Kantian analysis would deem that there is a moral duty not to discriminate on the basis of non-job related criteria. The Kantian analysis can be reduced even further to the simple statement that one should do unto others as they would have others do unto them. Raiborn and Payne (1990) proposed a code of ethics that takes into account both levels of morality and ethical values deemed important to society. The values identied in that article as being important were the values of integrity, justice, utility, and competence. At the highest level of morality, these values can be described in the following ways. Integrity is an ideal combining the values of sincerity, honesty, and candor. The concept of good faith is critical in this value. Justice entails the use of equality and fairness in decision-making. Competence is the value that forces workers to be competent, to maintain state of the art knowledge in their elds. The concept of utility dictates that the decision-maker will actively seek information on the impact its decisions will have on all parties and it will weigh this information equally (Raiborn and Payne, 1990, pp. 885-6). An application of this theory to the business practice of non-job related discrimination reveals that this theory denies that practice as a morally acceptable one, just as the Kantian analysis does. Good faith, honesty and candor are not found among people who discriminate on the basis of non-job related criteria; they cannot be honest and hope to avoid resultant lawsuits because they refused to hire a candidate on the basis of non-job related criteria. There is no justice on non-job related discrimination, as justice implies equality and fairness among choosing employees: choosing on the basis of non-job related criteria cannot provide equal or fair access to employment opportunities. Competence and utility are also denied when non-job related discrimination takes place: favoring an employee on a non-job related criterion does not assure that the best, most qualied candidate will be hired. The Aristotelian virtues (Aristotle, 1984; Bragues, 2006) also provide a construct upon which to base our proposed code. There are seven Aristotelian virtues arguably related directly to business. The seven virtues are: courage, self-control, generosity, magnicence, magnanimity, justice, and sociability. Courage is the ability to regulate fear, which should be present in reasonable measures for the marketing professional when considering a questionable action, such as marketing products that may be dangerous, like alcohol or even automobiles. Self-control is also applicable to actions of the marketing professional and his customer; it reects attitudes towards pleasure and self-gratication. The marketing professional should have the self-control to limit his activities that incite, encourage, or foster unreasonable pleasure-seeking:, i.e. the marketing professional should stop advertising that is targeting inappropriate audiences, as in the example of advertising cigarettes to young people. The customer must also curb his appetite to engage in inappropriate consumption habits, like smoking at the age of 12. As we live in a consumption-oriented society, both the marketing professional and the consumer are tempted to succumb to excess, a temptation which can be tempered with care and the use of reasonable codes of ethical conduct for the marketing professional.

The third virtue is generosity, which deals with the concept of the attainment of wealth. The marketing professional and his customer both want the best value for their expenditures: the marketing professional wants to sell the optimal amount, while the consumer wants to purchase things he needs or desires. In either case, there should be a median path that will suit the needs of each of the parties: the marketing professional should make a reasonable return on his investment and the consumer should have access to the products or services he wishes to consume. Magnicence is closely related to the concept of generosity: it implies the expenditure of large sums in the right way for a good reason. It is not the way of the Pharisee with bells on his sleeves for conspicuousness, dropping large sums of money that were only a very small percentage of his wealth into the collection plate at services. It is the idea that marketing professionals are a part of our community and, as symbiotic partners with consumers, have obligations to generously give of themselves, for example, by being involved with the community. Magnanimity, closely related to magnicence, is the idea that one should have value and respect for great honors, in this case, the receipt of trust from the community and its business and consumer members. Sociability is the ideal that one should act pleasantly and professionally with others. Clearly, this attribute should permeate business dealings regardless of what the nature of those dealings is. It is especially important for this virtue to be present in marketing efforts, as we have seen the negative perceptions the consuming public has about the marketing profession as a whole. Finally, the virtue of justice, in its most simplistic form, reects the idea of proper allocation of goods. Although there are many levels to Aristotles discussion of justice, it is appropriate to use this easily understandable denition of justice and to apply it to actions of marketing professionals:
Aristotle wants people to value things at their real worth in their exchanges, but he recognizes the cultivation of proper tastes is the task of moral education on the part of the state or parents [. . .] (Bragues, 2006, p. 350).

A transcendent code of ethics

67

Thus, both the marketing professional and his consumer should make an informed effort to understand the position and needs of the other party and act courageously, responsibly, generously, magnicently, magnanimously, and sociably. Using the Ethical Ideals Summary and Tables I and II as a way to more clearly dene the most important ethical principles of the ethics of marketing professionals, we can construct a model code that all marketing professionals might use to assure that their needs to
Author Raiborn and Payne (1990)

Concepts Consistency Respect individuals Autonomy for all Integrity Justice Utility Competence

Kant (1969) Universally consistent actions Respect individuals as inherently valuable Respect autonomy of all rational beings

Aristotelian virtues (Aristotle, 1984) Self-control Generosity Sociability

Integrity Justice Utility Competence

Courage Justice Magnicence Magnanimity

Table I. Frameworks of ethical concepts

IJLMA 55,1

Synthesized concept Consistency

AMA code Recognize established standards of conduct Adhere to societal values of morality Utilize highest ethical standards Do no harm Foster trust Utilize honesty, responsibility, fairness, respect, transparency and citizenship Pledge to uphold ethical standards

SMEI code Eschew knowing, detrimental behavior towards stakeholders Promote mutual benet of buyers and sellers

AAAA code Recognize societal legal and ethical frameworks Be a constructive, positive force in business Utilize highest ethical standards Avoid harmful marketing practice Utilize honesty, condence and respect towards stakeholders Adhere to codal provisions

68

Table II. A synthesis of principles found in codes of marketers professional ethics

Self-control Magnanimity Generosity Respect Utility Magnicence Integrity Justice Courage Autonomy Competence Sociability

Do no harm Utilize honesty and truthfulness

Execute pledge to act in good faith

make a reasonable prot are met while meeting the needs of the stakeholders. Table I is a summary of the frameworks presented here; the far left column represents a synthesis of the concepts of the frameworks that can then be compared with marketing codes of ethics. Such a comparison will provide the basis for our single code of marketing ethics. Prominent marketing codes of ethics The ethical concepts derived from the three codes of marketing ethics developed by marketing professionals organizations are not prevalent in the literature of marketing ethics. We thought, however, that to assure a practical approach to the issue of the utilization of marketing codes of ethics, we should turn to the codes developed by several prominent professional associations: the AMAs (2011) code, the SMEs (SMEICE, 2011) code and the code generated by the AAAA (2011). Such a review reveals that the values and pledges held by the members of these organizations are very similar to those deemed important to the authors/researchers in the academic eld of marketing ethics, as well as those in the eld of business ethics as a whole. The AMAs code is constructed of four parts: the preamble, ethical norms, ethical values, and implementation. The preamble describes norms as established standards of conduct, expected and maintained by professional organizations, while values are what society nds generally as morally proper; values also allow the evaluation of behavior as ethical or unethical. Stakeholders are identied and a pledge is made to utilize the highest ethical standards in interactions with stakeholders. The ethical norms identied by the AMA are: do no harm, foster trust in the marketing system, and embrace ethical values. Ethical values included honesty, responsibility, fairness, respect, transparency, and citizenship. Finally, the implementation of the code of ethics is the pledge to abide by this code and the values the code represents. Interestingly, there are no sanctions listed specically for violations of the code of ethics, a problematic issue with all codes of professional responsibility.

The SMEIs international code of ethics sets forth a creed wherein 11 pledges. Accountability to stakeholders is acknowledged, although, as with the AMA code, there are no discernable sanctions that would be exacted for violation of any of the pledges made. The selling concept recognizes the importance of consumers and the mutual benets to be had by buyers and sellers. SME members pledge to protect freedom of consumers and competitors to chose and innovate. They will not knowingly engage behavior detrimental to stakeholders. They make pledges in relation to channels of distribution, productivity, and pricing; they vow to protect stakeholders from harm attributable to the marketing of products or services. The group acknowledges honesty and truthfulness, as well. Finally, they promise to cooperate fully in the execution of the pledges of good faith made in the code. The AAAAs (2011) code is constructed in lines similar to the AMAs code: there is a policy statement section, followed by their creative code. In this code, unlike the previous two, there are sanctions to be imposed if the member violates the codal provisions, though the teeth of the sanctions is but the possible annulment of membership from the group, what could be perceived as a fairly mild sanction. Stakeholders are identied and the code addresses advertising issues specically. Honesty and decency seem to be the most important elements of this code. These standards [. . .] come from the belief that sound and ethical practice is good business (AAAA, 2011, 6 September 2010). Table II is a comparison of the three codes of professional conduct reviewed here; the far left column is a synthesis of the elements of the codes. Conclusion: a single code of professional ethics for the business community Table III is a compilation of several gures and tables herein and the introduction of a proposed uniform professional code of ethics for marketing professionals, academics, and students that any business professional and indeed any well-educated and well-meaning person should be able to understand and use to good effect when confronted by difcult moral choices. The right-hand column is a beginning of the construction of such a uniform code of ethics, directed specically at the eld of marketing. If the professionals who inhabit that eld would rely on the basis of societal and business ethics as a foundation for making sound moral marketing decisions, society as a whole, business and marketing professionals will benet. A review of the proposed guidelines makes it ever more clear that a single code of ethics for all business professionals, including marketing professionals, is reasonable and may be a good solution for those professionals confronted with ethical dilemmas. Future research The code in Table III will likely not be the model eventually used. However, the inability of the marketing decision maker to understand that there may be ethical components to a decision being made must be overcome. Moreover, the complexity involved in looking through more than one code may prevent ethical decisions and obviously undesirable situation. The authors believe that a single code would be useful to all involved in making decisions in any aspect of marketing and hope that the code in Table III will stimulate further research, discussion and formulation.

A transcendent code of ethics

69

IJLMA 55,1

Concepts derived from synthesized frameworks and consolidated as to principle Consistency Self-control

Proposed uniform professional code of business ethics for marketing professionals Use self-control in treating all consumers and stakeholders in a consistent manner avoiding detrimental actions towards all stakeholders Treat all stakeholders with respect, in a fair and openhanded manner Avoid the use of coercion or any tactics that harm consumer trust Provide a variety of options in a competitive environment Develop mutually benecial and open relationships by assuring freedom of choice and providing information that is accurate, relevant and complete to all appropriate parties Utilize the highest ethical standards in decisions effecting all stakeholders Be involved with all relevant communities and stakeholders through public service of signicance Recognizing the autonomy that comes with specialization and professionalism, utilize reasonableness and honesty in making decisions that affect stakeholders Ensure that consumers have the opportunity to voice concerns and complaints about products in such a manner that the issue is handled responsively and prociently Ensure that consumers receive a reasonable settlement of just claims Be courageous in all decisions ensuring that justice is achieved Avoid dehumanizing actions Adhere to all codal and ethical provisions Act pleasantly and professionally with others Act in good faith to fulll the economic, legal, philanthropic, and societal responsibilities to all stakeholders Recognize your commitments to vulnerable market segments Ensure that your products cause no harm to users or society so long as they are used and disposed of as directed Ensure that all actions promote a healthy environment

70

Magnanimity Generosity Respect

Utility Magnicence Autonomy Integrity Justice Courage

Competence Sociability

Table III. Transcendent code of ethics for marketing professionals

References AAAA (2011), American Association of Advertising Agencies, available at: http://ams.aaaa.org/ eweb/upload/inside/standards.pdf (accessed 9 May 2011). Adler, N. (1999), International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, Southwestern, Cincinnati. Akaah, I.P. (1992), Social inclusion as a marketing ethics correlate, Journal of Business, Vol. 11, pp. 599-608. Akaah, I.P. and Lund, D. (1994), The inuence of personal and organizational values on marketing professionals ethical behavior, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 13, pp. 417-30. Akaah, I.P. and Riordan, E.A. (1989), Judgements of marketing professionals about ethical issues in marketing research: a replication and extension, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 26, pp. 112-20. AMA (2011), American Marketing Association, available at: www.Marketingpower.com/ AboutAMA/Pages/Statement%20of %20Ethics.aspx (accessed 9 May 2011). Andrews, K.R. (1987), The Concept of Corporate Strategy, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., New York, NY.

Aristotle (1984) in Barnes, J. (Ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (The Revised Oxford Translation). Baumhart, R.C. (1961), How ethical are businessmen?, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 39 Nos 6-9, pp. 156-7. Bragues, G. (2006), Seek the good life, not money: the Aristotelian approach to business ethics, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 67, pp. 341-57. Brinkman, J. (2002), Business and marketing ethics as professional ethics: concepts, approaches and typologies, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 41, pp. 159-77. Carroll, A.B. (1991), The pyramid of CSR, Business Horizons, July/August. Chonko, L.B. and Hunt, S.D. (2000), Ethics and marketing management: a retrospective and prospective commentary, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 50, pp. 235-44. Crane, A. and Matten, D. (2004), Questioning the domain of the business ethics curriculum, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 357-69. Dawson, L.M. (1997), Ethical differences between men and women in the sales profession, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 16, pp. 1143-52. De George, R.T. (1999), Business Ethics, Simon & Schuster, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Dobson, J. (2003), Why ethics codes dont work, Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 59 No. 6, pp. 29-34. Frankel, M.S. (1989), Professional codes: why, how, and with what impact?, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 8 Nos 2/3, pp. 109-15. Freeman, R.E. and Gilbert, D.E. Jr (1988), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman Publishing Inc., Marsheld. Gaumnitz, B.R. and Lere, J.C. (2002), Contents of codes of ethics of professional business organizations in the United States, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 35-49. Hensel, P.J. and Dubinsky, A.J. (1986), Ethical dilemmas in marketing: a rationale, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 63-7. Holley, D.M. (1987), A moral evaluation of sales practices, Business and Professional Ethics Journal, Vol. 5, pp. 3-21. Hunt, S.D. and Chonko, L.B. (1987), Ethical problems of advertising agency executives, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 16, pp. 16-24. Hunt, S.D. and Vitell, S.J. (1986), The general theory of marketing ethics, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 6, Spring, pp. 5-15. Hunt, S.D. and Vitell, S.J. (2006), The general theory of marketing ethics: a revision and three questions, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 1-11. Joyner, B.E. and Payne, D. (2002), Evolution and implementation: a study of values, business ethics and corporate social responsibility, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 41, pp. 297-311. Joyner, B.E., Payne, D. and Raiborn, C.A. (2002), Building values, business ethics and corporate social responsibility into the developing organization, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 113-31. Kant, I. (1964), Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Harper & Row, New York, NY (translation by H.J. Paton). Kant, I. (1969), Foundations of the metaphysics of morals, in Wolff, R.P. (Ed.), Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, with Critical Essays, Bobbs-Merrill Co., Indianapolis, IN.

A transcendent code of ethics

71

IJLMA 55,1

72

Kennedy, E.J. and Lawton, L. (1993), Ethics and services marketing, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 12 No. 10, pp. 785-95. Laczniak, G.R. (1983), Framework for analysing marketing ethics, Journal of Macromarketing, Spring, pp. 7-18. Laczniak, G.R. and Murphy, P.E. (1991), Fostering ethical marketing decisions, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 259-71. Langlois, C.C. and Schlegelmilch, B.B. (1990), Do corporate codes of ethics reect national character?, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 519-39. Lund, D.B. (2000), An empirical examination of marketing professionals ethical behavior in differing situations, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 331-42. Maes, J.D., Jeffery, A. and Smith, T.V. (1998), The American Association of Advertising Agencies (4As) standards of practice: how far does this professional associations code of ethics inuence reach?, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17, pp. 1155-61. Mason, D.E. (1992), Values for ethical choices: rate yourself, Nonprot World, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 23-5. Molander, E.A. (1987), A paradigm for design, promulgation, and enforcement of ethical codes, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 6 No. 8, pp. 619-31. Murphy, P.E. and Laczniak, G.R. (1981), Marketing ethics: a review with implications for managers, educators and researchers, in Enis, B.M. and Roehring, K.J. (Eds), Review of Marketing, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 251-66. OBoyle, E.J. and Dawson, L.E. Jr (1992), The American Marketing Association Code of Ethics: instructions for marketers, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 11, pp. 921-32. Payne, D. (2003), Engineering ethics and business ethics: commonalities for a comprehensive code of ethics, paper presented at IEEE Annual Regional Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana. Payne, D. and Landry, B.J.L. (2005), Similarities in business and IT professional ethics: the need for and development of a comprehensive code of ethics, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 62, pp. 73-85. Raiborn, C.A. and Payne, D. (1990), Corporate codes of conduct: a collective conscience and continuum, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 9, pp. 879-89. Rawls, J. (1971), A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Robin, D.P. and Reidenbach, R.E. (1987), Social responsibility, ethics, and marketing strategy: closing the gap between concept and application, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 44-58. Schwartz, M. (2001), The nature of the relationship between corporate codes of ethics and behavior, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 32, pp. 247-62. SMEICE (2011), Sales and Marketing Executives International Code of Ethics, available at: www. smei.org/displaycommon.cfm?an1&subarticlenbr16 (accessed 9 May 2011). Stoll, M.L. (2002), The ethics of marketing good corporate conduct, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 41 Nos 1/2, pp. 121-9. Taylor, P.W. (1975), Principles of Ethics: An Introduction, Dickensen Publishing Company, Encino, CA. Tsalikis, J. and Fritzsche, D.J. (1989), Business ethics: a literature review with a focus on marketing ethics, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 8 No. 9, pp. 695-743. Valentine, S. and Barnett, T. (2002), Ethical codes and sales professionals perceptions of their organizations ethical values, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 191-200.

Velasquez, M.G. (1999), Business Ethics: Cases and Concepts, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Vitell, S.J., Paolillo, J.G.P. and Thomas, J.L. (2003), The perceived role of ethics and social responsibility: a study of marketing professionals, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 63-86. Wood-Harper, A.T., Corder, S., Wood, J.R.G. and Watson, H. (1996), How we profess: the ethical systems analyst, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 69-78. Corresponding author Milton Pressley can be contacted at: mpressle@uno.edu

A transcendent code of ethics

73

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints