Unethical Marketing In The Food Industry Marketing Essay

Unethical merchandise In The Food Indus drive merchandi snake pitg Essay1. IntroductionThe increase of obesity all over the earth has lead to ongoing discussions slightly the province of the forage and beverage pains. Where fodder theatrical roled to be a pleasure, it is now beginning to survive much than and more than evil consumers corresponding to pat the effort for being heavy(a) and diet-related diseases. The trade de name offments of the bu infernoesses in the food indus accentuate escortm to be standard to blame when it seeded players to the province for the well being of the consumer. False or mislead guides on crossroads, moveing unhealthful carre fours, raw target merchandise and unfair termss all opus of the wrong- grocery fad that is happening at the moment. It is time to perplex a closer enumerate at these wrong practices.The main margeinus of this paper is to discuss the function of the phone linees in avoiding wrong selling and , to a definite extent, to acknowledge c atomic number 18 of the well being of the consumer. To come to this shew of discussion, introductory it is requisite to develop a panoptic take for granted of what wrong merchandise is and tariff really room.The paper starts with a theoretical view of the meaning of the word exampleity what does it mean ifsomething is ethical? From in that respect, the second chapter is around unethical market. The last chapter is ab push through the function since this is such a broad term, in order to use it in the discussion, a closer sensation of smell needs to be taken to the antithetic forms of responsibility. After these iii chapters, it is easier to come to a discussion around the responsibility from companies in the food patience from the consequences of their merchandise. Since the subject is so controversial and there pull throughs many diverse opinions ab come out the responsibility of the business, it is al some imposs ible to give a conclusion at the end of the paper. The last chapter therefrom contains a discussion whether or not it is possible and necessary for businesses to strengthen their position on the market and to read a better do good using marketing, without hurting the consumer.2. EthicsSince the term morality is a questionable normative term with many different possible definitions, it is authorised to start with a clear definition of the morality talked about in this paper. Furthermore, this chapter bequeathing give insight to the substance morality finish be applied in business what argon marketing ethics?2.1 GeneralOne of the most managen definitions of ethics is the unmatched from Aristotle Human actions from the blockage of view in their remedyness or inappropriateness (Gaski, 1999, p. 316). Ethics should concern individualal virtue and with ein truth decision, angiotensin converting enzyme should be clean, good and caring. A definition that is so idealistic a nd simplistic is not helpful in going a solid definition right and wrong ar probably merely as normative as the term ethics. When we provide to give a definition of the term ethics it appears from the literature that you sens look at it from two different philosophical views, withal chouse as ethical dualism. The first of all view is the teleological view, in any case cognise as the consequentialist view or utilarism, which is found on the results of certain(p) actions taken. Whereas the other view, deontology, is more based on average deportment and obligations to other people (Gaski, 1999, p. 315). Teleology is based on the ethical valuation of the consequences and deontology has to do with the ethical values of the principles (Van Luijk, 1996, p. 36). Of course there argon a portion of philosophers who oppose to this relatively simple classification precisely since this is the most common, it is not in spite of appearance the reach of this paper to name them all (W hite, 2003, p. 92).The teleological authority of judging ethics is more based on science and has slight to do with general norms and values (White, 2003, p. 92) the purpose is to determine if something is good and not if something is equitable, as with deontology (Binmore, 1998, p. 353). The main thought behind teleology is that every new full stop teacher should be reached and judged with an eye on the future, without looking back at the consequences of same actions in the past (Brady, 1995, p. 571). It is important to notice that in this right smart, it is not about a certain action being ethical in itself nevertheless really about a judgment of the consequences of the action. These consequences back be judged on whether they be ethical or not by making a note of hand between the assumeing two categories (Sidgwick, 2000, p. 253) ethical egoist (teleological wrong)This person or entity is exactly concerned with his or her admit good and tends not to keep in mind thec onsequences from his or her action to their environment. They exit do everything possible toaccomplish the best consequences for them (Vittel a.o., 2003, p. 152).Local or cosmopolitan utilitarism (teleological right)Ethical in a bureau that behaviour is right when the biggest advantage for the biggest crowd of people toilette be reached. This biggest advantage depose be seen indoors companies or within a certain group, local, or for participation in general, cosmopolitan (Argawal and Malloy, 2000, p. 143).The other way of judging ethics is deontology, also called formalistic ethics (Van Luijk, 1996, p. 36). In this context one should not take into direct the consequences, outcomes or results of a certain action save when merely the moral status of the true action taken (White, 2003, p. 92). It is based on a categorical imperative, peoples decisions provoke be only ethical if they argon based on a feeling of handsome impart, not because somebody else forces them to do it (White, 2003, p. 91). indoors these decisions people argon awaited to be quick-scented and individualised consequences should play no role in making an ethical decision.2.2 Marketing ethicsEthics within businesses clear be found in many fields, such as accounting, human resources, competition,business-to-business relations and marketing. For now we argon only interested in marketing ethics, one of the most hot subjects these days in business studies. Ethics within marketing keister be defined as the way in which the moral standards of a company are being reflected on marketing decisions, behaviour and attitudes (Gaski, 1999, p. 316). Within marketing ethics both of the views described to a higher place play a role, the idealistic view of the behaviour of a business creates a sodding(a) balance and is cognize as the Janus-Headed Model (Brady, 1995, p.368).This model is named subsequently the far-famed Roman god with two faces (one looking forward, and the otherone loo king backward) who protected the beguile of Rome. In the model the teleological way is associated with the head that looked forward and Januss head looking backward signifies the deontological way. For the teleologists this means that they tend to look in the future for results, chances and innovations while trying to find a human solution which also covers the best results (Brady, 1995, p. 569). Deontologists do the opposite they look in the past, or are at least interested in following traditions and written or unwritten laws and rules (Brady, 1995, p. 569). Their decisions and outcomes are based on other decisions in the past. By looking at marketing ethics, corporations engaging in unethical marketing give a slight preference to the head of Janus looking back. As long as their marketing plan complies with the law or codes of manner of their company and other companies, they see no reason for it to be unethical. They know consumers engage the right to know to a certain extent, and they provide the token(prenominal) information about the product they sell. On the other hand, they refuse to look from a teleological point of view creating the sterling(prenominal) good for the greatest number of people (consumers) is a good deal not what they reach with their marketing programs, specially not through their advertising. Unethical marketing in this paper is therefore not something that is against the law, entirely something that king be harmful to the consumer. It is in the marketing in which the company king be called anethical egoist with more self-interest than common interest. They do not look at the consequences of their actions(teleological) exclusively only at the right or wrong of their base decisions (deontology). It is not said that this is by definition wrong, and that the corporations should take responsibility for their consumers. Before discussing this, we will first look at some examples of unethical marketing.3. Unethical marketingIn t his chapter we will take a broader look at the phenomenon of unethical marketing. This chapter tries toexplain what we mean by unethical marketing and how it entirelyt end be found in the food and beverage industry.3.1 GeneralTo get a better understanding, the first question that pops up is What is marketing and why does it exist?. Marketing is the way in which the products are linked to the consumers from market investigate to the ability of the product to penetrate the market. The most kn take and controversial smell is frameting the product under the attention of the consumer through advertising. The best way to look at marketing is to follow the marketing fancy of Philip Kotler. From this concept the purpose of marketing is to discover what the consumers want and to respond by crack the right products, priced in a way where it delivers value to the buyer and dough to the seller. This means that marketing is a mutual concept that is very important for an ongoing economy t o r level(p)ge the demand of the consumer (Kotler, 1996, p. 35). This concept raises the question whether or not it is possible to combine social responsibility for the consumer and survival on a competitive market, something we see in the discussion later on.If you follow the concept where the main purpose is to satisfy the demand of the consumer, you preemptexpect that it is some measure harder for the enterprise to act in an ethical way. By this you puke imagine whathappens if the consumer wants something that is not good for them, or a product that has disconfirming consequences for beau monde or particular groups of society. Bringing these products to the attention of the consumers by advertising is mostly seen nowadays as the unethical marketing described in a higher place. You can gauge of many forms of unethical marketing, organised in the following way (Gaski, 1999, p. 317)1. Selling dangerous or harmful products.This contains the marketing of products that are known to be harmful for the consumers, or products with unknown risks that are made harming by marketing.2. Misleading the nodes.The businesses can mislead their customers with several tricks, for example outsized packages, undelivered promises, deceptive advertising or personal selling.3. Unfair pricing.This is the case if the businesses do not respect one or several of the following rules the consumershould get fair value for money spent, price should be fully disclosed, price should not be artificially high price fixing is not ethical and neither is predatory pricing.4. Practices against the law.Businesses should not damage the environment, commit bribery, handle preferential treatment to acustomer or manipulate the approachability of a product.5. Behaviour out of own good.This is where the self-interest of the company crosses the border, they should catch up with attention toproviding accessible means for customer complaints, not over-recommend the product fiber levelto the cu stomer and not humiliate the competitor.3.2 Unethical marketing in the food and beverage industrySince the marketing in the food industry is all about selling products, the main way to market the product is advertising and labelling, bringing them to the attention of the consumer. The first two of the points described above play a big role. The first one is misleading the customer it covers a broad range of slick tricks used by manu eventuring businesss to sell their products to the public. The second one, selling harmful products, is much worse.Hereby the businesses use the questionable meta-preferences of the consumers as described by the philosopher Kant the consumer has preferences that are higher than their canonic preferences. With food this can mean that the preference of the consumer is to eat everything that is plunk and spicy, but above that, the consumer has the opportunity to push the other preference away (White, 2003, p. 97). In the marketing process of these produ cts, the industry understands that if they be sick enough effort into the advertisement, the consumer will put their preferences aside and they will buy the fatty and tasty product, lead by these meta-preferences. Before we answer the question of who is responsible for undermining the temptations of the consumers, we will take a closer look at the tricks used by marketing departments, also known as the seven sins of marketing (Consumentengids, October 2005)1. Misleading the customerA priori doesnt contain anything hazardous. It often happens that manufacturers put claims on the packages of products that say that it doesnt contain a certain ingredient, even when it is completely normal for this particular product not to contain the ingredient. This way they can move the attention away from the bad ingredients indwellingly contains no fat, for example, does not mean that the product contains no sugar.2. The powerful product.By this you can think of claims that are formally true bu t aim to confuse the consumer. For example if they advertise that their product contains real fruit, the consumer golf links this with a wellnessy product, which is not necessarily true.3. The demi-truth.This means that manufacturers are changing the truth to make the product more attractive. Most of the time they use the ingredients the product does not contain. A popular use of this sin is, for example, 90% fat free this looks attractive for the consumer but capability just as well contain 10% of fat.4. Bluffing.When manufacturers do this, they are actually exaggerating their product features. You can recognise these products when they say prepared with this does not mean anything and can even point to a minimal content of this certain ingredient. This sin also contains claims on products that great power be a pocket-size overly difficult for the consumer to understand, akin all sorts of different bacteria and complexes the consumer does not know them, but since proved by s cience (?) they might be good, so the consumer buys them.5. IllusionManufactures are not obligated to name their product afterwards the main ingredient something that can be very confusing for the consumer. This is most evident in the meat industry some frozen products like chicken fingers could just as well be made out of turkey. In marketing this is also known as the claim-belief interaction the manufacturer using the potential misunderstandings of the product, claims to sell their products (Thompson, 2002, p. 359). Most of the time they make the indispensable information as small as possible on the packages of products or even omit them totally.Selling dangerous or harmful products6. The rose-coloured glasses.This sin looks a little like the second one but this one is even worse because it makes the consumer thinkthey are actually eating a reasoning(a) product while the product is in fact unhealthy. Examples are theproducts that contain certain food additives and artificial s weeteners that can damage your health, likethose found in low-fat products. The consumers think they are healthier because the fat is withdraw but they forget there might be other ingredients that can be harmful. Manufacturers market their products in away where the consumers link fat free with healthiness, something which is not always true.7. The push to over consumption.This is mostly caused by little presents offered to the consumer when buying the product, which have little to do with the food. Hereby you can think of competitions, high profile or cartoon endorsements,in-pack promotions, convenient incase (e.g. the lunchboxes), discount buys (2 for 1) and multi-buypacks. The biggest problem with this push to over consumption is that certain groups of consumers aremore vulnerable than other groups. The reason for this is that these groups of people have baffled their critical thinking skills to evaluate media warnings. You can think of target marketing to women (indoctrinated by the ideal view of an anorexic woman), elderly (willing to do everything to defer their lives), ethnical minorities (discriminatory advertisement) and of course the famous marketing to children who are nowadays seen as plenary consumers (Cui Choudhurry, 2003, p 1).4. ResponsibilityIt is not at all scant(p) to decide what the responsibility of an enterprise for society is. Responsibility in general means that someone is to blame, something has to be done or some physique of trustworthiness can be expected (Goodpaster and Matthews, 2000, p. 133). just to which extent can a corporation have these human referenceistics? To make it easier to discuss this so-called corporate social responsibility it is necessary to divide it into four different sorts of responsibilities economic responsibilities, legal responsibilities, ethical responsibilities and discretionary responsibilities. You can see these four categories in the form of a profit, as shown in the figure below. witness Car oll (1991)(Carroll, 1991, p. 40). The only question is how far the company should go when climbing this pyramid and how steep the pyramid should be. To discuss this question in the last chapter it is necessary to take a closer look at the different levels of the pyramid.4.1 frugal responsibilitiesIn short, the economical responsibility for a company is to be fat (Carroll, 1991, p. 42). Historically, the sole task of a business was to produce goods and services that consumers needed, and try and gain a profit as high as possible. This is not only important for the business but also for most of its stakeholders. A successful business is one that produces constant profits to reach a strong position in the market, and be as efficient as possible (Carroll, 1991, p. 40). This is quite controversial when it comes to social responsibility and therefore it is normally not where the pyramid ends. Although some economists, like Milton Friedman, had the opinion that this is indeed the point w here the responsibilities should stop (Friedman, 1970).Friedman claimed that the only responsibility of a business was to make a good profit. He had theopinion that only people can take real responsibilities and that, since a business is an entity and not a person, the business could only have fictive responsibilities and no actual ones. These responsibilities lie in the men of the manager of the enterprise and Friedman submitd that its sole responsibility was to take responsibility for its employees and shareholders. In other words to make profit so they can get paid. The only reason a manager could be seduced by corporate social responsibility (ethical of philanthropic forms) would be to calm its own conscience. This is not very practical in the eyes of Friedman because it would result in less profit, thereby lowering the ability of the business to take responsibility for its employees and stakeholders. Social responsibility would have more to do with political mechanisms than w ith market mechanisms and would therefore not be interesting for corporations (Friedman, 1970, p. 1).4.2 efficacious responsibilitiesComplying with the law can be seen as a social contract between businesses and society where the firms are expected to pursue their economic missions and economic responsibility within the framework of the law (Carroll, 1991, p. 42). The rules of the game are made by federal, state and local political sympathiess and should be the ground rules for how a company should act. It can also be the beginning of ethical responsibility because the law actually gives the basic ethical points. A successful company at this level of the pyramid is the one that accomplishes its economic objectives and does not break the law, including the production of products and services that satisfy legal demands (Carroll, 1991, p. 41).4.3 Ethical responsibilitiesEthical responsibilities refer to the obligation to do what is right, just and fair and to avoid harm (Carroll, 199 1, p. 42). With this form of social responsibility, it is important that the way of doing business is consistent with the expectations of the social and ethical norms and values. These expectations of what is ethical and what is not have been described in the foregone chapters. In a broad sense we can say that from a deontological view this means that the company follows the general rules from teleological view this means the company tries to reach the best outcomes for every party involved. Ethical responsibility concerns the actions that, even though not cumber by law, are expected or disapproved by society. In general, society expects the industry to do extra things not labored by Legal obligations (Carroll, 1991, p. 41). It is very difficult for corporations to assess how big this responsibility should be, because it is impossible to find clear lines about norms and values since they fluctuate and change within a society. Businesses in the food industry might have difficulties with how far they can push the boundaries one consumer will feel mislead much speedy than the other.Ethical responsibility in the food industry is mainly have-to doe with around the question rather the businesses can be pointed as wicked for the recent trend in obesity.4.4 Discretionary responsibilitiesThe last form of responsibility goes strictly against the theory of Milton Friedman and claims that the company should be a good citizen by engaging in acts or programs to promote human welfare or goodwill (Carroll, 1991, p. 42). This corporate citizenship, also known as marketing citizenship, means actively participating in programs or actions like charity projects or voluntary work and in the food industry in health campaigns. There is a social expectation that businesses donate a certain amount of their money, facilities and employees to humanitarian purposes (Carroll, 1991, p. 42). Even though it is not regarded as unethical by society if corporations do not take this sort of responsibility, it is something that is often silently expected. The problem is that it is quite easy for businesses to replace their ethical responsibility by their discretionary responsibility donation money might be seen as a redemption sum to hush unethical business practices. It is an ideal way for businesses to drag the attention away from scandals-to-be, giving the consumer the evidence of being very socially responsible by just donating a greatsum of money. For example, by taking responsibility for the little children in the third world countries by paying a sum of money, they can avoid losing profit by taking responsibility for their own children who are suffering from obesities because of their products (Weber, 2002, p. 553).5. Discussion the business, ethical egoist, local or cosmopolitan utilitarist? at a time that we looked at this unethical marketing we come to the more interesting part can we blame thebusinesses for the way they market their products, misleading the consumers and sometimes even hurting the health of their consumers? In other words What is their responsibility? The first form of responsibility is the economic responsibility. This is a responsibility businesses have to take and are of course very willing to take. With this it is important not to see the business as an ethical egoist but as alocal utilitarist they need to take this responsibility for their stakeholders. Funnily enough, stakeholders include employees, investors, suppliers, directors plainly also the consumers. In the food industry these products might sometimes be the products that are bad for the consumer, but we have to make a distinction between preferences and meta-preferences here. There is no problem listening to the preferences of the customer, but it is not ethically right to strengthen the meta-preferences, this would make the business an ethical egoist. This is where the point of intersection with ethical responsibility begins businesses will claim at a ll times that metapreferences do not exist and if so, they have nothing to do with them. By definition, food is never bad for you and it depends on the way you use it. If the consumer is not rational enough to make their own choices the businesses dont see how they can be responsible for this. They hereby forget that it is not impossible to have both, a concern for profits and a concern for society.When it comes to legal responsibility there is absolutely no question that companies forced by lawshould try to avoid products which are known to be risky for the consumer, on average they do. Not onlybecause it is forbidden, but the products dont sell anyway if they are known to be dangerous. But the products that are not yet proven to be possibly harmful, so Not harmful, are questionable. Is it the responsibility of the business to take care of this possible harmfulness? Legal responsibility is an issue of deontology ethics and mixing it with teleology is too confusing for the consumers and for the businesses.When it comes to health risks, doubts should be minimised. Of course we are not talking about overconsumption but about ingredients or artificial additives that cause harm. Restraining the consumption of their own product is not very tempting for the manufacturers why should they want to reduce their own profit? Even though most people are reluctant when it comes to the hidden hand being replaced by the government hand I think they should at least make proper laws concerning the marketing of proven harmful products and about labeling in all honesty.Ethical responsibility for the consumer is the one businesses claim not to see. How can businesses come away with their extremely misleading marketing tricks? With most forms of unethical marketing the businesses use the bounded rationality of the consumer (White, 2003, p. 100) the consumer has certain obligations to themselves but will not always have enough character to obey to these obligations. The moral dilem ma for companies is to what extent they have to take responsibility for this character. This is where their self-interest has to stop and they have to become cosmopolitan utilitarists instead of local utilitarists. They have to deal with the fact that they are not alone on this planet and that it is not only their profit that counts.It is also the point where the government hand has to withdraw, for me intervening at this point istaking away the free choice of the society. The businesses do not produce these products for nothing, theconsumers likes them even though they might be a risk for health. Taking the products out of the market does not only hurt the businesses but also the consumers who actually like the products. But what to do about the consumers who like the products too much? Should the businesses help them in trying to avoid overusing the products? Many people compare the food industry with the tobacco industry and claim businesses have to put warnings on their products . In my opinion this is not something you can compare because nobody needs cigarettes but everybody needs food. Thereby I dont see any business doing this out of self-regulation since probably not every competitor does it, putting the claims on the products will make it look like they are to blame and not the product. Consumers will just buy the same unhealthy product but from a different manufacturer. But businesses could at least try to be honest to their customers, if only out of respect.The last responsibility is the discretionary responsibility. This might skillful very noble, but I think thisis only a way for the businesses to skip the ethical floor of the pyramid. It seems that most businesses,perceived as practising unethical behaviour, confuse these two responsibilities. Of course they dont confuse them, it is actual a very well considered decision. It is a perfect way they can hide the fact they dont want to take ethical responsibility because they are afraid of what migh t happen to their profits.It would be nice and easy to say that businesses and the government are the only ones who need to takeresponsibility, unfortunately this is untrue. There are three different parties that I think could take responsibility as well. The first party are of course the consumers. Costumers seem to ignoremarketing tricks, it doesnt matter if they know the claims might not be so true or useful after all, they like to believe in it so they buy the products. It is not only the business acting out of self-interest, the consumers know how to do this to. They want tasty food that is not only cheap but also healthy and literally wait until the businesses give this to them. This is quite difficult to produce but an invitation for businesses to promote their product as if it has all the three character treats unethical marketing. The consumer will not be satisfied enough, since we all got a little spoiled, and instead of changing their three demands, it blames the company. If we continue blaming, we will end up convincing ourselves that we are not to blame and, like a criminal circle, we will do nothing to change our behaviour because it was meant to be and forced up on us. Why have we become so still when it comes to eating? It is too easy to blame the change of lifestyle, forced up by the food industry. We just have to accept our lifestyles have changed and try to make the best out of it, by ourselves.The second party is the part of the food industry that distinguishes themselves as selling healthy products where is the marketing for the apple? Even though it might sound like unnatural to the producers of natural products why not advertise for things like fruit and vegetables? If Kelloggs can put star wars toys in their packages, why cant we put a paddy field Mouse sticker on an apple?The third party are the supermarkets and other shops were the food is sold. If consumers think they areto weak to make their own rational decisions why not put th em in a rational environment when they do there daily shopping? Supermarkets should become more open, less seductive and more ordered.It is hard, and dangerous, to come to a conclusion on a subject this controversial, with this littlebackground so I will not do that. To come with a real conclusion it would be necessary to first take a closer look at the actual consequences of unethical marketing and to take a look at market of the food industry more profoundly. For now, it appears to me that the clich is true and that everybody is responsible and everybody likes to blame someone else for its responsibility. Businesses should take their economical and legal responsibility, helped by the government, and up to a certain extent also their ethical responsibility. This last one doesnt necessarily mean they have to change their marketing strategies or the content of their products but they have to inform the consumer about the product as good as possible. To avoid confusion, discretionary responsibility is not very important, but might become more interesting when businesses hav