Socially Responsible (Macro-Social) Marketing

Abstract

In Laczniak and Shultz’s (2021) article explicating Socially Responsible Marketing (SRM), they provide the argument for marketers (and their organizations) to act to benefit society. Organizations should actively seek, when given the opportunity, to increase positive social outcomes through addressing wicked problems. Those objectives are shared by social marketers and macro-social marketers ( Kennedy 2016). The authors state that SRM is most important for commercial marketers as social marketers inherently incorporate social values into their work. However, this does not take into account ethical issues ( Kennedy and Santos 2019; Eagle 2009) and the increasing controversy surrounding behavior change. We argue that SRM is both necessary and applicable to social marketers within a macro-social marketing context. We first explain the need for such an approach in social marketing. Next, we discuss ethical approaches to social marketing in order to establish the appropriateness of distributive justice and any additional ethical approaches. Finally, we apply each guiding element (Corporate Citizenship, Stakeholder Orientation, and Social and Ecological Sustainability) to the context of macro-social marketing, with a brief statement on the applicability of constructive engagement and the necessity for future research in that area.

Keywords

Socially responsible marketing macro-social marketing social marketing social marketing ethics macromarketing

Introduction

In Laczniak and Shultz’s (2021) article explicating Socially Responsible Marketing (SRM), they provide a much-needed impetus and convincing argument for marketers (and their organizations) to act to benefit society. Not only this, the new doctrine posits that marketers should be responsible for negative externalities they accrue, and take a constructive engagement approach to avoid those (Shultz 2007). They argue that organizations have a social contract with society and their obligations necessitate good corporate citizenship, a stakeholder orientation, and social and environmental sustainability. The delivery of these obligations can be measured by the application of distributive justice (Rawls 1971).

On top of these points, the authors propose that SRM’s constructive engagement would also oblige organizations to be “action-oriented” and actively seek to increase positive social outcomes through addressing wicked problems when the opportunity presents itself. This objective is shared by social marketers and macro-social marketers (Kennedy 2016). Yet, in explaining the Context of Application (Bishop 2000) of SRM, the authors state that it is less important for social marketers. They state this because, for social marketers and non-profits, social goals tend to be their “raison d'être,” and they generate less controversy over their social responsibility related actions (p. 205). However, this does not take into account that a number of ethical issues do still apply to social marketing (Kennedy and Santos 2019; Eagle 2009). For instance, most recently with social marketing interventions (often based on policy change) regarding COVID-19 vaccinations, lockdowns, social distancing, mask wearing, and business compliance with new health regulations (as evidenced by protests throughout the world). Although social responsibility may have been at the heart of these interventions this does not absolve the social marketer from socially responsible marketing. Indeed, the consequences of a poorly designed and executed social marketing intervention (Henley and Donovan 1999) and the third-order effects associated with macro social marketing programs, in particular, can be so damaging (Kennedy and Parsons 2014), that it is even more beholden on social marketers to adopt a socially responsible marketing approach to their work. Controversies regarding the use of nudging (Von Bergen and Miles 2015), and at the macro level, when included in social engineering programmes (Kennedy and Parsons 2012), all mean that a socially responsible marketing approach is not something that should be ignored, simply because the end goal is important. The means to achieve such ends must also adhere to the socially responsible mandate outlined by Laczniak and Schultz (2021).

The objective of this commentary then, is to argue that SRM is just as applicable and necessary for social marketers within a macro-social marketing context. It does this through first explaining the need for such an approach in social marketing. It then reviews previous ethical approaches to social marketing and macro-social marketing in order to establish the appropriateness of Distributive Justice, and any additional ethical approaches to be considered. Finally, it applies each guiding element (Corporate Citizenship, Stakeholder Orientation, and Social and Ecological Sustainability) to the context of macro-social marketing, with a brief statement on the applicability of constructive engagement and the necessity for future research in that area.

Why Do Social Marketers Need SRM?

Before applying SRM to social marketing, one must first argue with the premise that the pro-social mission of social marketing precludes it from the need for a socially responsible marketing doctrine. Social marketing

“seeks to develop and integrate marketing concepts with other approaches to influence behaviour that benefit individuals and communities for the greater social good. Social Marketing practice is guided by ethical principles. It seeks to integrate research, best practice, theory, audience and partnership insight, to inform the delivery of competition sensitive and segmented social change programmes that are effective, efficient, equitable and sustainable” (iSMA 2014).

While the definition espouses the use of ethical principles, there is no agreed upon set of ethical principles for social marketers. We discuss this further in the next section. One might ask, with a definition such as this, what ethical issues are there to face? According to Kennedy and Santos (2019), social marketers, just like marketers (Laczniak and Murphy 2006) face ethical issues regarding their processes, methods, and outcomes. While we do not claim here that social marketing is intentionally unethical, the main point of the following discussion is that there are areas for ethical concern within social marketing, as there are in any discipline, and these should be salient in the minds of social marketers at every step of their work. It is important to uncover and discuss both ethical concerns and normative-ethical guidelines to address them.

Ethical issues regarding the process of social marketing start with questioning the often-paternalistic nature of some social marketing interventions. Here, social marketers may decide not only that people's behaviors are problematic, but that they, as experts, know the “best” way for people to live, and have a right to intervene (Brenkart 2001; Lefebvre 2011). Taking such a top-down approach to intervention and potentially restricting personal choice or freedoms for public benefit presents an ethical challenge.

Social marketer’s choices may also introduce additional ethical challenges. For instance, choosing between social problems necessarily involves a cost/benefit analysis where some miss out. In some cases, some may even be hindered or harmed through interventions designed to help. Specific groups are continuously targeted, creating stigma and discrimination, or continually ignored if hard to reach (Brenkart 2002; Bloom and Novelli 1981). Choosing to target individuals (vs. structural components), also plays a role in potential victim-blaming. This is because it places more emphasis on personal responsibility and can ignore systemic factors perpetuating behaviors that are beyond the individual’s control (Langfordand Panter-Brick 2013; Wallack et al. 1993).

A top-down, non-consultative approach to interventions, especially where there is a large power imbalance between the social marketer and target group, can lead to methods that challenge a person’s autonomy, freedom of choice, or other personal rights (Brenkert 2002; C.N. Smith 2001). Other methods can be seen as coercive, such as with the use of fear appeals to drive attitudinal and behavior change, which may cause emotional turmoil or more. As behavior change is difficult to maintain once rewards or punishments (e.g., payments or fines) are removed, these methods too can be considered questionable (Iyer and Kashyap 2007). Increasing taxes on addictive products may further disadvantage the larger proportions of lower socio-economic consumers who purchase them (Eagle, Dahl,and Low 2015). Some forms of behavior change can also be seen as manipulative and thus potentially unethical. Behavioral economics, nudging, and covert undemocratic forms of social engineering may all be unethical. This as their covert nature robs a person of true freedom of choice (Buchanan, Sasiragha Reddy, and Hossain 1994; Von Bergen and Miles 2015; Kennedy and Parsons 2014).

Perhaps the most pertinent to SRM and its approach though are the ethical implications of the usually unintended effects of social marketing. These might occur for either the intended or unintended target people. Stigmatization of target behaviors can lead to people feeling alienated, discriminated against, and blamed for their lack of change resulting in, at a minimum, damage to their self-esteem (Carter et al. 2011). Fear appeals based in negative emotions such as shame or guilt, may cause viewers to feel helpless, anxious, uncomfortable, or generally distressed. One campaign for White Ribbon Day in Australia using such an appeal led to severe distress for some viewers because it trivialized suicide and self-harm and could also have triggered those behaviors (Donovan et al. 2009).

When taking a macro-social marketing view of change, inevitably the question of social engineering also raises its head. In that scenario, social marketers at the micro, meso, and macro levels including government, non-government, community and other groups try to shape the environment to create behavior change (Kennedy 2016). The shift from government implementation of behavior change plans (that benefit society) to utilitarian regimes is at times murky in the current pandemic hit world. However, unintentional consequences from systemic change bring about myriad potential negative and positive outcomes and thus democratic, iterative, and participatory processes are essential for this to be avoided (Kennedy and Parsons 2014; Szablewska and Kubacki 2019).

Thus, to suggest social marketers as having “social goals built into their mission statements” (p. 205) does not preclude them from unintentionally or intentionally causing harm to achieve their goals. That is, from also becoming aware of the areas in which ethical issues may arise and also applying SRM to proactively address these. If anything, the impact form behavior change programs and the potential harm that could be caused are so great it is even more necessary for social marketers to thoroughly consider SRM practices and values in their work.

Is SRM Appropriate for Social Marketing?

While we have now established that social marketers also suffer from potential negative societal consequences, we must also discuss whether they too have a social contract with society to mitigate these. The basic social contract referred to in Laczniak and Shultz (2021) is initially based on the transactional economic exchange of goods and services. SRM extends this type of thinking beyond economic functions to broader societal obligations. Those obligations are specified using the concepts of Corporate Citizenship, Stakeholder orientation, and Social and economic sustainability. Going back to the original impetus of social contract theories, the aim was to justify an agreement that a group gives consent to another group. Originally to state authority (e.g., Locke 1690), this was later applied to businesses (e.g., Donaldson 1982). The social contract between businesses and society revolves around the obligation businesses owe society because of what they receive from them (e.g., legitimacy, profit, etc.). For instance, commercial marketing provides a provisioning system, and so an exchange relationship occurs of provision of goods and services (Laczniak and Shultz 2021). Likewise, a fundamental tenet of social marketing interventions, one that in fact often makes them different from health promotion or education, is to ensure the intervention offers target groups an enticing exchange for their personal behavior change.

C. N. Smith (2001) supports that social marketers also have a social contract with society. He goes on to explicate though that Integrative Social Contracts Theory is more applicable because it is more practicable and specifically includes differing community norms. So, for instance, micro-social marketing social contracts would be held with each stakeholder. These consisting of the norms for ethical behavior from each stakeholder group. It can be concluded then that social marketers also hold a social contract with society, based on exchange, though contextually distinct from commercial marketing.

Is Distributive Justice the Best Measure of SRM for Social Marketers?

We argue that there are a myriad of problematic ethical conundrums within social marketing, and especially from a macro-marketing perspective. The next step is to explore current ethical approaches to social marketing and their treatment of distributive justice. This helps to understand whether distributive justice is the best measure of SRM for social marketers.

Laczniak and Shultz (2021) apply distributive justice as fair distribution of benefits and harms without further disadvantaging the least advantaged. Surprisingly, this principle is not often applied in social marketing ethical frameworks and guidelines. Instead, many have suggested applying Utilitarianism to social marketing (Rothschild 2001; Donovan and Henley 2003; Downie and Calman 1994), not addressing Rawls’ Difference principle which would provide some protection for vulnerable groups. Considering outcomes as ethical “that bring the greatest good to the greatest number of people” is problematic in a social marketing setting. This is because key target groups tend to be minority and vulnerable populations, and negative externalities also tend to disproportionately effect these groups as well. Other less problematic ethical principles applied include those from Ross’ Theory of Duties including: Non-Maleficence (to do no harm – W. Smith 2001; Donavan and Henley 2003; Downie and Calman 2004); and Beneficence (e.g., giving “assistance where it is needed” – Donovan and Henley 2003, Downie and Calman 2004). Kant’s Categorical Imperative is also featured in both its first (Donavan and Henley 2003) and second formulations (Rothschild 2001). In the first, it is claimed that the rights attributed to human beings in the case of social marketing should be applicable to all people. In the second formulation, that target group needs be put before social marketer’s needs and thus not used as purely a means to an end. This was explained by Rothschild (2001) as referring to choosing the most efficient marketing-based tactics and interventions rather than those that are best for the social marketer. Others embody this through considering privacy concerns of target groups (C.N. Smith 2001). Virtues including Honesty, Trust, Respect (Andreasen 1995) and Truth (W. Smith 2001) have also featured in social marketing ethical guidelines. Lastly, Garrett’s Proportionality Framework is popular and also reflected somewhat in the SRM. Brenkert (2001; 2002); Smith (2001) and Kennedy and Santos (2019) all espouse it by considering the consequences of willed means, and ends of a social marketing intervention. Where positive outcomes are intended, an intervention and approach can be deemed as ethical.

Relating to Justice as the main ethical principle outlined by Laczniak and Shultz (2021), we see most of the current social marketing ethics literature also consider aspects of Justice. Without explicit acknowledgement of their ethical philosophical bases, all parties being treated fairly and equally (Donovan and Henley 2003; Downie and Calman 1994; W. Smith 2001) might reflect Ross’ Theory of Duties around Justice. While Rawls’ Liberty Principle by guidelines around free choice, opinions, and self-expression (Donavan and Henley 2003; Rothschild 2001); non-interference (Downie and Calman 2004); and equal access (Brenkert 2001; Donovan and Henley 2003). Rawl’s Difference principle however, can only be seen in Kennedy and Santos’ (2019) macro-social marketing ethical framework. Their framework adapts the Integrative Justice Model (IJM Santos and Laczniak 2009) to social marketing. The IJM was inspired by a number of ethical theories and approaches, but most importantly, it includes the ethical bases suggested but unreconciled in other social marketing ethical guidelines. This makes it one of the more streamlined and accessible normative guidelines for social marketers and avoids contradictory ethical decisions. According to the macro-social marketing ethical framework’s (Kennedy and Santos 2019, p533) normative guidelines:

“Social marketers should seek to co-discover, co-design and co-deliver value with stakeholders in order to:

1.1. authentically engage stakeholders without exploitive intent, and

1.2. represent the genuine interests of all stakeholders, and especially those which are the most disadvantaged.

Social marketers should intend to commit to long-term behavior change and relationship management and consider their part in that process through taking a systems perspective.”

The ethical framework acknowledges that social marketing does not take place in a silo and its externalities occur within a broader system of change. Macro-social marketing, defined as seeking to bring about system wide change through changing the institutional norms that perpetuate the problem (Kennedy and Parsons 2012; Domegan 2008), looks at shaping the social context for change at a societal level (Domegan 2008). It takes many different interventions, at the individual (micro), organizational and community (mezzo), and society and policy (macro) levels together to instil long lasting systemic change.

While the macro-social marketing ethical framework is the most all-encompassing, it also presents more ethical bases than the SRM. That being said, an overarching concern with achieving equity and fairness, along with social justice principles, is a core challenge for social marketers to this day (Lefebvre 2011; Saunders, Barrington, and Sridharan 2015; Gurrieri, Brace-Govan, and Previte 2014). Saunders, Barrington, and Sridharan (2015) posit that if social marketing results in disempowerment of the target group, fair and just social transformation is not achieved (p. 164) and that a Capabilities approach might solve the issue (Sen 1999; Nussbaum 2011). The SRM presents distributive justice as just one approach to measure whether an organization is following SRM and explicitly states that it does not prevent other ethical approaches from being taken. Thus, the aim of this section is not to suggest that distributive justice is not appropriate for social marketing. In fact, it is instead to encourage the social marketer to consider the appropriate ethical measures for their own situation.

How Can the Elements of SRM Be Applied to Social Marketing?

We now can see that social marketers also hold a social contract with society and have ethical issues that would necessitate adoption of SRM. But what might these social contracts include? We now move on to a discussion of the social contracts that each of the elements of SRM present. We discuss them by incorporating social marketing literature in order to assess their appropriate conceptual application to social marketing. The three elements outlined by Laczniak and Shultz (2021) to help in identifying social contracts under an SRM doctrine are Corporate Citizenship, a Stakeholder Orientation, and Social and Ecological Sustainability. This section now discusses each element and how it might also apply to social marketers.

Corporate Citizenship and Social Marketing

Corporate Citizenship was conceptualized in the article as organizations being held responsible for both obeying the law, and being ethical at a minimum, and hopefully (to align with SRM), also philanthropic. The aim of philanthropic ventures to both produce positive community outcomes, and also increase profits/brand equity. As with Institutional Theory, living up to these societal expectations affords organizations power and legitimacy, while failure to meet them leads to sanctions (Scott 2013). By only referring to the definition of social marketing (iSMA 2014), one might quickly ascertain that social marketers also espouse these responsibilities. In regard to positive community outcomes, social marketers seek to “influence behaviours that benefit individuals and communities”. While also being guided by ethical principles (iSMA 2014); legal obligations for public health; and the tenets of human rights (Szablewska and Kubacki 2019).

When looking further into the development of the consensus definition of social marketing, the process aim was to

“…help build a common narrative that could be used by the supporting associations to promote Social Marketing as a valuable core component of social programmes aimed at improving the human condition.” (p. 1, Tapp et al. 2014).

To develop the definition the working group surveyed members of the iSMA, ESMA, and AASM on essential and important principles to be included in the definition. On further refining the definition, group members and board members were given opportunities to provide feedback, and the final definition was endorsed by all three boards. In looking at the items that were identified as important and essential by the 167 respondents, the basic premises of Corporate Citizenship can be seen to be supported. Especially with regards positive community outcomes which is repeated in many different ways. For instance, 79% of respondents supported inclusion of the principle to “Focus on the production of social good”; 66% to “Apply and be guided by an ethical analysis and standards”; 61% to “Apply commercial marketing theory and practice to social challenges”; 51% to “Focus on creating value for citizens and civil society through valued negative exchanges”; and 50% to “Focus on creating value for citizens and civil society through valued voluntary exchange”.

Dann’s (2010) review and analysis of the previous 30 years of social marketing definitions further supports the applicability of Corporate Citizenship in principle to social marketing. He found that at its core principle, social marketing seeks to benefit the targeted group, social marketer, and society. This was based on the different approaches to determining value in a social marketing exchange. These include self-interest motivation (Rothschild 2002); total financial and non-financial costs being less than the value provided (Joyce and Morris 1990); along with cost effectiveness in both monetary terms (Bright 2000) and societal cost-savings (Lee 2008). Thus, in agreement with Corporate Citizenship but in a social marketing context, Dann (2010) concluded that the positive outcomes of social marketing include self-interest satisfaction (for targeted groups); return on social investment; and social profit.

The Stakeholder Orientation for Social Marketers

Stakeholder Orientation traditionally leads to an unequal obligation of an organization where shareholder satisfaction trumps other stakeholders. Instead SRM states that an authentic stakeholder orientation is not based on obligations to stakeholders, but rather the consequences of organizational decisions. In doing so it considers fair and just duties towards stakeholders. Their view of Stakeholder Orientation as authentic includes ethical considerations that acknowledge the organization’s social contract by taking a broader view of the externalities caused by business decisions. This allows a firm to move beyond a pure market oriented, profit maximization approach to Stakeholder Orientation and decision making. Within social marketing too, all stakeholders must be involved in social marketing’s conceptual evolution (Lefebvre 2012), and intervention planning, design, implementation, and assessment (Akbar, French, and Lawson 2019).

Since the beginning of the evolution of social marketing thought, it was suggested that social marketing also helps to analyze and address harms caused by commercial marketers (Lazer and Kelley 1973; Gordon 2011). A view supported by 37% of respondents to the earlier explained iSMA and ESMA Key Principles and Definitions Survey. This orientation has been coined Critical Social Marketing (Hastings 2009; Gordon et al. 2010; Gordon 2011). The role of critic and conscience of commercial marketing is also shared by macromarketers (Fisk 2002) and socially responsible marketers (Laczniak and Shultz 2021). The findings of such analyses are used by social marketers for upstream social marketing, policy implications, and macro-social marketing.

Macro-social marketing moves beyond solely considering the consequences of commercial marketing to including the consequences of social marketing. Taking a Systems and Institutional Theory perspective, Kennedy (2016) explains the interconnected nature of the wicked problems that social marketers tend to deal with. Wicked problems, by their definition, should require social marketers to assess the consequences of their interventions on the broader cultural, social, and market systems, along with the material environment. Wicked problems are those that are caused and perpetuated by a number of interconnected factors, so much so, that addressing one factor will send ripple effects through the rest of the systems (Rittel and Webber 1973). As such, methodologies for macro-social marketing research espouse the use of systems thinking in order to address this issue (Kennedy 2017), and systems based social marketing practice is growing by the day (Flaherty et al. 2020).

Reflexivity has also been suggested as an avenue to address unintended negative impacts of social marketing (Gordon and Gurrieri 2014). Using such approaches supports the identification and mitigation of potential negative externalities of social marketing interventions, in alignment with Laczniak and Shultz’s (2021) explanation of an authentic Stakeholder Orientation. The definition of what constitutes “the greater social good” (iSMA 2014) in social marketing also provides implied attention to the consequences of social marketing interventions and processes. There is some debate about the use of the term social good within the social marketing discipline. Spotswood et al. (2012) indicate social marketing seeking socially good outcomes seek outcomes that benefit society. The question remains as to who defines what benefits society though as different agendas highlight different outcomes. They suggest 1) that social good should be proven by social marketers by giving evidence that the targeted behavior gives a measurable benefit to society; 2) that any definition of social good should be based on constituents’ thoughts; 3) that negative consequences of an intervention be acceptable to the target group; and 4) the intervention will not increase inequality or will at least increase everybody’s well-being.

While not providing a specific definition of social good (instead implying it as contextual and situational but seeking social and distributive justice), Szablewska and Kubacki (2019) advocate that in order to ensure social good is identified and delivered, social marketers must take a human rights-based approach. This would include applying the principles of 1) Transparency and Accountability when identifying intervention areas; 2) Equality and Non-discrimination when choosing social marketing approaches; and 3) Participation and Inclusion when planning social marketing interventions and assessments (p. 878). All of which point to the use of Constructive Engagement by social marketers, in line with SRM.

Social and Environmental Sustainability for Social Marketers

Finally, Laczniak and Shultz (2021) state an holistic approach to Social and Environmental Sustainability as including both a concern with the interactions of the economy with the environment, along with ethical interactions with people. They also acknowledge that social wellbeing and environmental wellbeing are linked. That being said, their first explication deals with environmental sustainability and links it to environmental ethics and resource depletion. They use a western Dominant Social Paradigm view of the concept of sustainability as opposed to alternative ethnocentric or indigenous and holistic representations that more fully acknowledge all facets of sustainability beyond the environment (Kennedy, McGouran, and Kemper 2020). In acknowledging the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), they focus on the SDG related to responsible production and consumption as the most related to marketing. Yet from a macro and systems perspective, one can argue almost all of the SDGs relate to the marketing system with regards either marketing decisions, practice, or social marketing. They do not deal directly with the social aspects of sustainability, though doing so would have placed social marketing as a direct function of marketing that was necessary for SRM to be conducted.

The UN SDGs and other overarching sets of goals such as the WHO One Health Challenges provide behavior change goals for social marketing. This is because social marketing has moved beyond its roots in micro, individual-level change thinking. It has moved to holistic, systems thinking (Flaherty et al. 2020) that acknowledges the social architecture which shapes, enables, and perpetuates problematized social and environmental behaviors. The SDGs show the interconnected nature of social and environmental problems and just how “wicked” they are. Duane, Domegan, and Bunting (2020) directly address Goal 17 to “strengthen the means of implementation [of the other SDGs] and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development” (United Nations 2022, NP). The research developed and tested a social marketing partnership model which extends Morgan and Hunt’s (1994) Trust and Relationship Commitment model. Their research provides a path for social marketers to use partnerships for transformative and systemic change. Beyond this, social marketing could be applied to every SDG as shown in Table 1 and all areas of social and environmental sustainability. For example, to address Goal 2 – zero hunger – at the micro level, social marketers could provide education and development programs for pregnant people that distributes and engages them with nutrition. Additionally, to address the goal of good health and well-being (Goal 3) at the meso level, social marketers might facilitate the incorporation of employee health and wellbeing considerations into organizational functioning.

Table 1.

Potential Macro-Social Marketing Approaches to the UN SDGs.

UN SDG	Social Marketing Level	Potential Macro-Social Marketing Approaches
1. No poverty	Micro	Training and support for micro-entrepreneurs
	Meso	Interorganizational interventions to increase minimum wage to a living wage
	Macro	Increased government spending on social support systems
2. Zero hunger	Micro	Develop a program targeted at pregnant people that distributes and engages them with nutrition
	Meso	Interventions to train and support adoption of resilient agricultural practices by farmers
	Macro	Address negative consequences of agricultural trade restrictions
3. Good health and well-being	Micro	Develop well-being as a core curriculum component in schools/edutainment
	Meso	Incorporate employee health and well-being into organizational functioning
	Macro	Provide universal health coverage
4. Quality education	Micro	Education and support for parents to manage their children’s education.
	Meso	Increasing access to learning technologies and online off-campus education
	Macro	Invest in infrastructure in low-income areas to improve access to water, electricity and the internet.
5. Gender equality	Micro	Implement programs that promotes accurate and supportive care and messaging
	Meso	Empower community leaders to share notions of and support equal access and care for all.
	Macro	Removal of discriminatory laws preventing equal access.
6. Clean water and sanitation	Micro	Individual education about sustainable hygiene and sanitations practices.
	Meso	Encourage collaborative efforts form civil society organizations to keep government and other stakeholders accountable
	Macro	Investment in water research and development
7. Affordable and clean energy	Micro	Education program regarding sustainable and efficient use of appropriated resources.
	Meso	Promote the use of more environmentally friendly, renewable and clean resources from commercial enterprises.
	Macro	Financially and legislatively support the sustainable energy sector
8. Decent work and economic growth	Micro	Initiatives that provide transitional support for young people from school to the working environment
	Meso	Encourage proper health and safety procedures and supportive working environments
	Macro	Develop dynamic, sustainable, innovative and people-centred economies
9. Industry, innovation and infrastructure	Micro	Host reflective sessions with individuals to see how industry influences life and wellbeing.
	Meso	Encourage NGOs and public sector to progress sustainable growth through supported programs.
	Macro	Promote regulations and policies guidelines
10. Reduced inequalities	Micro	Program to educate and guide on available resources and technology to improve QoL.
	Meso	Implement programs in working environments that provides greater access and opportunities for underprovided for and marginalized groups.
	Macro	Increase minimum wage and reduce the pay gap
11. Sustainable cities and communities	Micro	Education and hands on learning programs for sustainable living
	Meso	Build more greenspace that are communally managed.
	Macro	Introduce subsidies that support environmentally sustainable development.
12. Responsible consumption and production	Micro	Learning programs and access to technology that promote waste reduction and thoughtful consumption.
	Meso	Share innovation and design solutions that improve the value chain
	Macro	Engage in positive multilateral environment agreements.
13. Climate action	Micro	Individual education and support regarding household sustainable practices.
	Meso	Encourage industrial organization to follow clean energy and production guidelines/recommendations.
	Macro	Larger scale support for low carbon and climate resilient transition
14. Life below water	Micro	Spread the message about the important of aquatic life in school curriculums.
	Meso	Recommend the use of plastic free and reusable material alternatives.
	Macro	Progress water and bio-diversity protection
15. Life on land	Micro	Advance the use of locally based diets.
	Meso	Empower communities to assist in the governing and creation of protected areas
	Macro	Subsidize bio-diverse rehabilitation and protection groups and programs.
16. Peace, Justice and strong institutions	Micro	In civic classes and community centres, encourage people to hold their officials accountable and share information.
	Meso	Empower community leaders (old and yet to be initiated) to filter through information between citizens and lawmakers.
	Macro	Increase and improve the facilitation of inclusion regarding perspectives of diverse people (based on ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexuality etc.)
17. Partnerships for the goals	Micro	Inspire people to take actions and work with each other on goals like the SDG where appropriate.
	Meso	Support collaborative work between stakeholders with shared goals
	Macro	Partner with businesses to implement ideas

This is not an exhaustive list and does not claim to provide perfect solutions. Instead, it is only meant to provide examples of potential areas of intervention to show that social marketing could be used as a part of a macro-marketing approach throughout. They are based on the goals themselves, and their key targets and indicators (United Nations 2022). Thus, social marketers are intricately involved with Social and Environmental Sustainability in line with SRM, because they inherently deal with wicked problems.

Constructive and Authentic Engagement in Social Marketing

This brings us to the final SRM component. The use of Constructive Engagement to deliver SRM. Overall, social marketers increasingly take a co-creative approach including co-design (Domegan et al. 2013). This alone does not amount to Laczniak and Shultz’ (2021) conceptualization of constructive engagement though. Constructive engagement is defined as

“a societal function and a set of processes for creating, communicating, and delivering value to customers and for managing customer and societal relationships in ways that benefit local and global stakeholders in the process” (Shultz 2007, p. 293).

It uses processes that aim to improve society overall, and which allow for intervention in social issues/wicked problems when they arise, circumventing short-term profit orientations for mutual wins between business and communities (Laczniak and Shultz 2021). This can be achieved through systems thinking, historical learning, cultural empathy, behavioral guidelines, and co-operation (Shultz 2015). Throughout this commentary, the themes of participation, empowerment, inclusivity, systems thinking, and socially beneficial exchanges is shown to be woven into the fabric of macro-social marketing as well.

Transformative Social Marketing (TSM) approaches (Lefebvre 2012) propose that individuals need to be active collaborators with social marketers, along with active personal and social change makers (Saunders, Barrington, and Sridharan 2015). This way of thinking moves away from the more traditional paternalistic approaches to social marketing. According to TSM, stakeholder relationship building and maintenance in an authentic manner is essential to ensure intervention and process value is created for all (Lefebvre 2012). Such value-infused relationships create collaborative processes that overcome environmental barriers and perpetuating circumstances (Luca, Hibbert, and McDonald 2016). These types of authentic engagements can be delivered through the complete co-creation process (Domegan et al. 2013) and community-based models of social marketing (Bryant, et al. 2000; 2007; Stead, Arnott, and Dempsey 2013).

Co-creation is paramount in social marketing interventions through the planning, decision making, creation, implementation and assessment processes. According to Domegan et al. (2013) this occurs from the beginning through co-discovery of participant’s values and their perceived problems and issues that require intervention and change. Co-design of such interventions and their co-delivery follow. These processes should be used to enable strong, long-lasting relationships. People should be active members of the social marketing team throughout, collaborating with social marketers and each other to co-produce, co-learn, and facilitate change (Lefebvre 2012). They should not be passive recipients of top-down intervention, as collaboration induces greater “buy-in” and increases levels of change (Bryant et al. 2007).

Proposed values to ensure TSM, help to envision an authentic engagement process that empowers stakeholders and especially target groups. These are Dignity, Hope, Love, and Trust (Lefebvre 2012). Ensuring each stakeholder’s inherent human dignity and respect of personal choice leads to their empowerment through the social marketing process. Lefebvre’s (2012) conceptualization of Hope infers a person’s self-determination in the social marketing and change process, increasing optimism in sought outcome achievement. Love suggests that positive appeals and interventions are more beneficial and effective (Lefebvre 2012). Trust is maintained and developed through transparency and reciprocal trust necessary for authentic relationships (Brennan, Previte, and Fry 2016) and increases accountability. Transparency throughout the social marketing process is important because it allows for decision makers and their decision-making criteria to be challenged, held accountable, and shortfalls rectified (Szablewska and Kubacki 2019). According to Szablewska and Kubacki (2019), discrimination, inequalities and vulnerabilities need to be addressed throughout the social marketing process for authentic engagement to occur. This not only helps to identify vulnerable groups, wider impacts of the social marketing process, and the meaning and scope of social marketing interventions, but also helps to mitigate and avoid discriminatory practices and aims to protect and respect each person’s human rights. As with Constructive Engagement, participation and inclusion aim to enact these values.

Conclusion

In summary, the key messages have been:

Social marketers address wicked, systemic problems.

Social marketers also face ethical choices and issues that could benefit from guidance from SRM.

Social marketers also have a social contract with society, based on exchange, that affords them benefits including trust and legitimacy.

Distributive Justice is an appropriate measure of Socially Responsible Macro-Social Marketing, so too are other ethical bases.

Corporate Citizenship can be applied to social marketers by seeking the positive outcomes of self-interest satisfaction (for target groups); return on social investment; and social profit; along with obeying the law and following ethical principles.

A Stakeholder Orientation should be applied to social marketing which aims to mitigate negative externalities through participatory and inclusive practices at all stages of the social marketing process.

Social marketers are intricately involved with Social and Environmental Sustainability in line with SRM, because they inherently deal with wicked problems from a holistic systems perspective.

Social marketers also practice Constructive Engagement through the use of participatory and inclusive practices and basic values which authentically engage with and represent stakeholders throughout the social marketing process.

The objective of this commentary was to argue that SRM is just as applicable and necessary to social marketers within a macro-social marketing context. This was argued through first explaining the need for such an approach by reviewing the ethical issues in social marketing. It then discussed previous ethical approaches to social marketing and macro-social marketing to establish the appropriateness of distributive justice along with additional ethical principles. A discussion of the nuances of each guiding element (Corporate Citizenship, Stakeholder Orientation, and Social and Ecological Sustainability) in the context of macro-social marketing followed, with a brief statement on the applicability of constructive engagement throughout the social marketing process.

Future research areas are plentiful and promising. Consideration of the environmental impacts of social marketing interventions is needed, along with their systemic impacts and drivers. While collaboration in social marketing is increasingly researched, the conceptual differences and similarities between constructive engagement and authentic engagement need further research. Further exploration of applications of different collaborative methods and their representation and embodiment of core social marketing values, also enables assessment of the level of engagement, protection, and empowerment of the people taking part.

Footnotes

Associate Editor

M. Joseph Sirgy

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Ann-Marie Kennedy

Author Biographies

Ann-Marie Kennedy is an Associate Professor specialises in the areas of Macro-social marketing, social marketing ethics, systems, and sustainability. Her work is published in international journals including the Journal of Macromarketing, Journal of Consumer Affairs, European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Social Marketing and Industrial Marketing Management.

Johnpaul Smith is a doctoral candidate at the University of Canterbury, and specialises in social marketing and minority based studies. Currently his research focus is in the rainbow space, and, given the intersectional nature of identity, also encapsulates people with a variety of identity markers (including race and ethnicity).

References

Akbar

M. Bilal

French

Jeff

Lawson

Alison

(2019), “Critical Review on Social Marketing Planning Approaches,” Social Business, 9 (4), 361-93.

Andreasen

Alan R.

(1995), Marketing Social Change: Changing Behavior to Promote Health, Social Development, and the Environment, 1st ed., San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bishop

John D

(2000), “A Framework for Discussing Normative Theories of Business Ethics,” Business Ethics Quarterly, 10 (3), 563-91.

Bloom

Paul N.

Novelli

William D.

(1981), “Problems and Challenges in Social Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 45 (2), 79-88.

Brenkert

George G.

(2001), “The Ethics of International Social Marketing,” in Ethics in Social Marketing, Andreasen

Alan

, ed. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 39–69.

Brenkert

George G

(2002), “Ethical Challenges of Social Marketing,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 21 (1), 14-25.

Brennan

Linda

Previte

Josephine

Fry

Mary-Louise

(2016), “Social Marketing’s Consumer Myopia: Applying a Behavioural Ecological Model to Address Wicked Problems,” Journal of Social Marketing, 6 (3), 219-39.

Bright

Alan D

(2000), “The Role of Social Marketing in Leisure and Recreation Management,” Journal of Leisure Research, 32 (1), 12-7.

Bryant

Carol A.

Forthofer

Melinda S.

McCormack Brown

Kelli R. M.

Landis

Danielle C.

McDermott

Robert J.

(2000), “Community-Based Prevention Marketing: The Next Steps In Disseminating Behavior Change,” American Journal of Health Behavior, 24 (1), 61-8.

10.

Bryant

Carol A.

McCormack Brown

Kelli R.

McDermott

Robert J.

Forthofer

Melinda S.

Bumpus

Elizabeth C.

Calkins

Susan A.

, et al. (2007), “Community-Based Prevention Marketing: Organizing a Community for Health Behaviour Intervention,” Health Promotion Practice, 8 (2), 154-63.

11.

Buchanan

David

Sasiragha Reddy

Hossain

Zafar

(1994), “Social Marketing: A Critical Appraisal,” Health Promotion International, 9 (1), 49-57.

12.

Carter

Stacy

Lucie Rychetnik

Beverley Lloyd

Ian

Kerridge

Baur

Louise

Bauman

Adrian

, et al. (2011), “Evidence, Ethics, and Values: A Framework for Health Promotion,” American Journal of Public Health, 101 (3), 465-72.

13.

Dann

Stephan

(2010), “Redefining Social Marketing with Contemporary Commercial Marketing Definitions,” Journal of Business Research, 63 (2), 147-53.

14.

Domegan

Christine

(2008), “Social Marketing: Implications for Contemporary Marketing Practices Classification Scheme,” Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 23 (2), 135-41.

15.

Domegan

Christine

Collins

Katie

Stead

Martine

McHugh

Patricia

Hughes

Tim

(2013), “Value Co-Creation in Social Marketing: Functional or Fanciful?” Journal of Social Marketing, 3 (3), 239-56.

16.

Donaldson

Thomas

(1982), Corporations and Morality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

17.

Donovan

Robert J.

Henley

Nadine

(2003), Social Marketing: Principles and Practice. Melbourne: IP communications.

18.

Donovan

Robert J.

Jalleh

Geoffrey

Fielder

Lynda

Ouschan

Robyn

(2009), “Ethical Issues in Pro-Social Advertising: The Australian 2006 White Ribbon Day Campaign,” Journal of Public Affairs, 9 (1), 5-19.

19.

Downie

R. S.

Calman

K. C.

(1994), Health respect, Ethics in Health Care, 2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press.

20.

Duane

Sinead

Domegan

Christine

Bunting

Brendan

(2021), “Partnering for UN SDG #17: A Social Marketing Partnership Model to Scale Up and Accelerate Change,” Journal of Social Marketing, 12 (1), 49-75.

21.

Eagle

Lynne

(2009), Social Marketing Ethics, Report for National Social Marketing Centre. London: National Social Marketing Centre.

22.

Eagle

Lynne

Dahl

Stephan

Low

David R.

(2015), “Ethics in Social Marketing,” in Marketing Ethics and Society, Eagle

Lynne

Dahl

Stephan

, eds. London: Sage, 235–255.

23.

Fisk

George

(2002), “"Envisioning a Future for Macromarketing,”,” Journal of Macromarketing, 26 (2), 214-8.

24.

Flaherty

Tina

Domegan

Christine

Duane

Sinead

Brychkov

Dmitry

Anand

Mihir

(2020), “Systems Social Marketing and Macro-Social Marketing: A Systematic Review,” Social Marketing Quarterly, 26 (2), 146-66.

25.

Gordon

Ross

(2011), “Critical Social Marketing: Definition, Application and Domain,” Journal of Social Marketing, 1 (2), 82-99.

26.

Gordon

Ross

Gurrieri

Lauren

(2014), “Towards A Reflexive Turn: Social Marketing Assemblages,” Journal of Social Marketing, 4 (3), 261-78.

27.

Gordon

Ross

Moodie

Crawford

Eadie

Douglas

Hastings

Gerard

(2010), “Critical Social Marketing – The Impact of Alcohol Marketing On Youth Drinking: Qualitative Findings,” International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 15 (3), 265. -75.

28.

Gurrieri

Lauren

Brace-Govan

Jan

Previte

Josephine

(2014), “Neoliberalism and Managed Health: Fallacies, Façades and Inadvertent Effects,” Journal of Macromarketing, 34 (4), 532-8.

29.

Hastings

Gerard B.

(2009), “Critical Social Marketing,” in Social Marketing and Public Health: Theory and Practice, French

Blair-Stevens

McVey

Merritt

, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 263-80.

30.

Henley

Nadine

Donovan

Robert J

(1999), “Threat appeals in social marketing: death as a ‘special case,” International Journal of Nonprofit, 4 (4), 300–319.

31.

iSMA (2014), Consensus Definition of Social Marketing. Available at: https://www.isocialmarketing. org/assets/social_marketing_definition.pdf Accessed 14th January 2022.

32.

Iyer

Easwar S.

Kashyap

Rajiv K.

(2007), “Consumer Recycling: Role of Incentives, Information, and Social Class,” Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6 (1), 32-47.

33.

Joyce

Mary L.

Morris

Michael N.

(1990), ““Pricing Considerations in Social Marketing” in Fine Seymour H,” Social marketing: promoting the causes of public and nonprofit agencies. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 101–113.

34.

Kennedy

Ann-Marie

(2016), “Macro-Social Marketing,” Journal of Macromarketing, 36 (3), 354-65.

35.

Kennedy

Ann-Marie

(2017), “Macro-Social Marketing Research: Philosophy, Methodology and Methods,” Journal of Macromarketing, 37 (4), 347-55.

36.

Kennedy

Ann-Marie

McGouran

Cathy

Kemper

Joya A.

(2020), “Alternative Paradigms for Sustainability: A Relational Worldview,” European Journal of Marketing, 54 (4), 825-55.

37.

Kennedy

Ann-Marie

Parsons

Andrew

(2012), “Macro-Social Marketing and Social Engineering: A Systems Approach,” Journal of Social Marketing, 2 (1), 37-51.

38.

Kennedy

Ann-Marie

Parsons

Andrew

(2014), “Social Engineering and Social Marketing: Why is One ‘Good’ and the Other ‘Bad’?” Journal of Social Marketing, 4 (3), 198-209.

39.

Kennedy

Ann-Marie

Santos

Nicholas

(2019), “Social Fairness and Social Marketing: An Integrative Justice Approach to Creating an Ethical Framework for Social Marketers,” Journal of Social Marketing, 9 (4), 522-39.

40.

Laczniak

Gene R.

Murphy

Patrick E.

(2006), “Normative Perspectives for Ethical and Socially Responsible Marketing,” Journal of Macromarketing, 26 (2), 154-77.

41.

Laczniak

Gene R.

Shultz

Clifford

(2021), “Toward a Doctrine of Socially Responsible Marketing (SRM): A Macro and Normative-Ethical Perspective,” Journal of Macromarketing, 41 (2), 201-31.

42.

Langford

Rebecca

Panter-Brick

Catherine

(2013), “A Health Equity Critique of Social Marketing: Where Interventions Have Impact but Insufficient Reach,” Social Science and Medicine, 83 (April), 133-41.

43.

Lazer

Kelley

E. J.

(1973), Social Marketing: Perspectives and Viewpoints. Richard Homewood, IL: D. Irwin.

44.

Lee

Nancy

(2008), “Good Works & So Do The 4Ps. Success Stories from The U.S.” World Social Marketing Conference key note presentation Brighton 29–30 September.

45.

Lefebvre

Craig R.

(2011), “An Integrative Model for Social Marketing,” Journal of Social Marketing, 1 (1), 54-72.

46.

Lefebvre

Craig R.

(2012), “Transformative Social Marketing: Co-Creating the Social Marketing Discipline and Brand,” Journal of Social Marketing, 2 (2), 118-29.

47.

Locke

John

(1690), Second Treatise of Government. Toronto, Canada: The Floating Press.

48.

Luca

Nadina R.

Hibbert

Sally

McDonald

Ruth

(2016), “Towards a Service-Dominant Approach to Social Marketing,” Marketing Theory, 16 (2), 194-218.

49.

Morgan

Robert M.

Hunt

Shelby D.

(1994), “The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (3), 20-38.

50.

Nussbaum

Martha

(2011), Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

51.

Rawls

John

(1971), A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap/Harvard University Press.

52.

Rittel

Horst W.

Webber

Melvin M.

(1973), “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning,” Policy Sciences, 4 (2), 155-69.

53.

Rothschild

Michael

(2002), “Accommodating Self Interest,” Social Marketing Quarterly, 8 (2), 32-5.

54.

Rothschild

Michael L.

(2001), “Ethical Considerations in the Use of Marketing for the Management of Public Health and Social Issues,” in Ethics in Social Marketing, Andreasen

Alan

, ed. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 17–38.

55.

Santos

Nicholas J.C.

Gene

R. Laczniak

(2009), “Marketing to the Poor: An Integrative Justice Model for Engaging Impoverished Market Segments,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 28 (1), 3-15.

56.

Saunders

Stephen G.

Barrington

Dani J.

Sridharan

Srinivas

(2015), “Redefining Social Marketing: Beyond Behavioural Change,” Journal of Social Marketing, 5 (2), 160-8.

57.

Scott

Richard W.

(2013), Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications.

58.

Sen

Amartya

(1999), Development as Freedom. New York, NY: Anchor Books.

59.

Shultz

Clifford

(2007), “Marketing as Constructive Engagement,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 26 (2), 293-301.

60.

Shultz

Clifford J

(2015), “The Ethical Imperative of Constructive Engagement in a World Confounded by the Commons Dilemma, Social Traps and Geopolitical Conflicts,” in Handbook on Ethics and Marketing. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 188-219.

61.

Smith

Craig N.

(2001), “Social Marketing and Social Contracts: Applying Integrative Social Contracts Theory to Ethical Issues in Social Marketing,” in Ethics in Social Marketing, Andreasen

Alan

, ed. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 125-159.

62.

Smith

William

(2001), “Ethics and the Social Marketer: A Framework for Practitioners,” in Ethics in Social Marketing, Andreasen

Alan

, ed. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1–16.

63.

Spotswood

Fiona

French

Jeff

Tapp

Alan

Stead

Martine

(2012), “Some Reasonable But Uncomfortable Questions About Social Marketing,” Journal of Social Marketing, 2 (3), 163-75.

64.

Stead

Martine

Arnott

Lisa

Dempsey

Emma

(2013), “Healthy Heroes, Magic Meals, and a Visiting Alien: Community-Led Assets-Based Social Marketing,” Social Marketing Quarterly, 19 (1), 26-39.

65.

Szablewska

Natalia

Kubacki

Krzysztof

(2019), “A Human Rights-Based Approach to the Social Good in Social Marketing,” Journal of Business Ethics, 155 (3), 871-88.

66.

Tapp

Brophy

Carausan

Carruthers

Peattie

Revill

, et al. (2014), “The Process of Developing the Consensus Definition,” Available at https://www.i-socialmarketing.org/index.php?option = com_content&view = article&id = 84:social-marketing-definition&catid = 28:front-page#.YgrZft9Bzb1 (accessed 16 February 2022).

67.

United Nations (2022), “Sustainable Development Goals,” United Nations, available at: www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ (accessed 16 February 2022).

68.

Von Bergen

C. W.

Miles

Morgan P.

(2015), “Social Negative Option Marketing: A Partial Response to One of Spotswood, French, Tapp and Stead’s (2012) ‘Uncomfortable Questions’,” Journal of Social Marketing, 5 (2), 125-38.

69.

Wallack

Lawrence

Dorfman

Lori

Jernigan

David

Themba-Nixon

Makani

(1993), Media Advocacy and Public Health: Power for Prevention. Newbury Park, CA: New York, NY: Sage.