Socially Responsible Marketing: A Moving Target in Need of a Normative-Ethical Doctrine

Introduction

This commentary focusses on two distinct but interrelated issues in the authors’ quest for a better understanding and meaningful definition of Socially Responsible Marketing (SRM): First, the dichotomy between hypothetical (SRM as a means to an end) and categorical imperatives (SRM as an end in itself) in fulfilling companies’ social responsibility has been ever present in the discussion of Corporate Citizenship, Stakeholder Orientation, and Social and Ecological Sustainability (the core definiens of SRM) (Laczniak and Shultz 2021). The social contract, which provides a theoretical justification for SRM, constitutes an implicit understanding between society and businesses. While this unwritten contract, which serves as the origin and foundation of SRM, recognizes that businesses have responsibilities towards society, the nature of these responsibilities stays unspecified. However, any attempt to describe and delineate these responsibilities - as has been done by the authors - invariably has to deal with hypothetical versus categorical imperatives.

Second, as pointed out by Laczniak and Shultz (2021), the majority of SRM definitions found in the literature are ephemeral, descriptive and ad hoc. Further, even those definitions that are based on a normative ethical perspective don't provide a consistent understanding of what socially responsible marketing should mean. In other words, there is no agreement of what ought to be done to be socially responsible. So far, “there never has been a significant consensus about exactly what the definition of socially responsible marketing includes” (Laczniak and Shultz 2021).

As will be explicated below, this commentary argues that SRM is a socially constructed, value laden, and dynamic phenomenon. Society's understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility and by extension of SRM reflects its main values, political system, and espoused ideological framework (Matten and Moon 2008). In this context, the dominant values and ideological framework of a society represent a shared mental map, a lens through which members of society make sense of the world in general and of the role of companies’ responsibility towards society in particular (Djelic and Etchanchu 2017). As the overall values and dominant ideology of a society shift, so does its expectations for what companies and government ought to do to for the society (Nill and Papp 2020). Indeed, the role of companies and the state concerning their respective responsibilities towards society has been significantly changing over time. Tasks that government used to be accountable for became the responsibility of companies and vice versa. That is, the pendulum of what has been perceived by society of government's versus companies’ responsibilities has been constantly moving.

Similarly, as the meaning of corporate social responsibility and by extension of social responsibility in marketing changes over time, so does the categorization of actions that follow hypothetical versus categorical imperatives.

Hypothetical versus Categorical Imperatives

“Now, if the action would be good merely as a means to something else, the imperative is hypothetical; if the action is represented as good in itself, hence as necessary in a will that in itself conforms to reason, as its principle, then it is categorical” (Kant 1786, p. 57).

All imperatives necessarily command either hypothetically or categorically. The hypothetical imperative “represents the practical necessity of a possible action as a means to achieving something else that one wants” (Kant 1786, p. 57). Thus, SRM that can be expected to increase competitiveness while serving a societal purpose is in line with Kantian hypothetical imperatives. That is, SRM becomes a means towards an end with the end being the objective of becoming more competitive and profitable. “I ought to do something because I want something else” (Kant 1786, p. 111) with the former being socially responsible and the latter becoming more competitive. In this case the value of SRM actions is being evaluated by their effectiveness to achieve the overriding goal of increasing shareholder value. Since the goal itself is not assessed, acting according to hypothetical imperatives is not necessarily ethical. As Kant put it eloquently more than 200 years ago: “There is no question here whether the end is rational and good, but only what one must do in order to attain it. The prescriptions for the physician thoroughly to cure his man, and for a poisoner reliably to kill him, are of equal worth, in so far as each serves to effect its purpose perfectly” (Kant 1786, p. 59).

When SRM is being instrumentalized following hypothetical imperatives, the goal usually is to increase shareholder value while the means to this end are SRM activities (Quinn and Jones 1995). To put it more cynically, the social responsibility of companies ends as soon as the social initiative in question cannot be expected to be in line with the overriding goal to increase competitiveness and profits (Nill and Papp 2020). Nonetheless, following hypothetical imperatives is still prevalent in practice as well as in the academic debate (Richter 2011). As pointed out by the authors (Laczniak and Shultz 2021), while there is little consensus about the nature and purview of SRM, most conceptions found in the academic literature deal with SRM more as a means than an end in itself (Kotler and Lee 2005; Langan 2014; Lichtenstein, Drumwright, and Braig 2004). This perspective, which is generally more accepted in Anglo-Saxon countries, is consistent with the Neoliberal worldview that corporations should only assume societal responsibilities if they advance the long-term value of the firm (Mackey et al. 2007).

Practicing SRM according to categorical imperatives requires that an ethical action must be taken regardless of its impact on shareholder value (Laczniak and Murphy 1993; Laczniak and Shultz 2021). SRM becomes an end in itself. “The categorical imperative would be the one that represented an action as objectively necessary by itself, without reference to another end” (Kant 1786, p. 57). Put simply, being socially responsible because it is the right thing to do equates following categorical imperatives. Undoubtedly, being socially responsible because it is good for business (SRM following hypothetical imperatives) has always been easier and less controversial than categorically doing the right thing.

Laczniak and Shultz (2021, p. 207) argue that “the general imperatives of the social contract, only some of which are embodied in the law, involve taking actions that protect and improve the collective of society” even if those actions do not increase profits. “The manifestation of SRM should be evaluated by a normative ethic of distributive justice” (Laczniak and Shultz 2021, p. 204). Following the principles of distributive justice based on John Rawls’ framework, companies ought to create fair outcomes for all stakeholders with special consideration given to the most vulnerable. Thus, distributive justice leaves no room for merely instrumentalized SMR (following hypothetical imperatives). In this respect, the doctrine of SRM suggested by the authors is “premeditatedly a normative-ethical ideal” (Laczniak and Shultz 2021, p. 203). As such it consistent with the a priori character of Kant's categorical imperatives.

The dilemma of course is that those companies that do the right thing because it is right might become less competitive. Accordingly, and in line with most people's expectations, the authors suggest that businesses struggling for survival - as many startups do - have less of an ethical duty to act socially responsible beyond what is mandated by law than strong, powerful companies (Spence et al. 2019). Nonetheless, it is an inherent paradox that companies, which do the right thing categorically, might become less competitive and, as a result of being weaker, have to act less ethically. As will be explicated below, this potential paradox might be dissolved by recognizing the socially constructed character of SRM.

Socially Responsible Marketing: A Rarely and Inconsistently Used Expression in the Academic Literature

Surprisingly, the expression “Socially Responsible Marketing” is rarely used in the academic business literature. A brief literature review on two comprehensive databases for business journals (ABI INFORM and Business Source Premier) using the search terms “Socially Responsible Marketing” and “Social Responsibility in Marketing” in the abstract and/or title and/or author supplied key words has been performed. This search yielded only 31 peer reviewed journal articles. Almost half of these articles appeared in non-U.S. journals. The majority were descriptive and those using a normative approach were mainly following hypothetical imperatives. While there was a significant increase of articles in the last decade, the low number shows that the expression “Socially Responsible Marketing” is not very well established.

Clearly, while there is no agreement of what SRM entails, the general concept of social responsibility in marketing has been discussed much more frequently in the literature as the results of this literature search would indicate. Often, the main issues of Social Responsibility in Marketing are being examined as part of Marketing Ethics (Ferrell, Ferrell, and Sawayda 2014). Thus, many articles that deal with these issues do not use the expression SRM. Further, the social responsibility of companies in the field of marketing is regularly being discussed under the hypernym Corporate Social Responsibility as “SRM is part of the broader domain of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in business” (Laczniak and Shultz 2021, p. 204). Again, many of these contributions, which are relevant for the social responsibility discussion in marketing, are not using the expression “Socially Responsible Marketing”. Having no agreed upon expression for the issues at hand makes their core concepts more elusive and research in this field more cumbersome and potentially less influential. Therefore, the whole field would greatly benefit from having an established expression and clear definition of the issues surrounding the social responsibility of companies in the field of marketing. The contribution by Laczniak and Shultz (2021) provides both, a clearly demarcated expression – “Socially Responsible Marketing” – and a meaningful definition that – as will be shown below – stays relevant under different ideologies and economic conditions.

The expression CSR is much more established in the academic literature than its hyponym SRM. Using the search term “Corporate Social Responsibility” in the abstract and/or title and/or author supplied key words on ABI Inform revealed almost 12,000 peer reviewed journal articles. There was a dramatic increase of contributions over the last two decades, which indicates that the overall topic became much more prominent. Nonetheless, the CSR discussion in academia is plagued by some of the same problems that also haunt SRM: There is no consensus about the meaning of CSR and the issues it entails or should entail.

While, since Bowen’s (1953) seminal work, the idea and concept of CSR has been discussed in the business literature for more than 70 years, there is still no common definition or understanding of CSR (Dahlsrud 2008; Maurel 2011; Nill and Papp 2020; Öberseder, Schlegelmilch, and Gruber 2011). As a very broad common denominator, CSR represents an umbrella term of overlapping conceptions of business-society relations (Matten and Moon 2008). It should “embody the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary categories of business performance” (Carroll 1979, p. 499) and include commercial, social, environmental, and stakeholder dimensions (Devinney 2009). However, there is no general understanding or consensus of exactly what the responsibility of companies is or should be. Thus, the concept of CSR stays elusive and has been described as “inherently vague and ambiguous” (Schlegelmilch and Szöcs 2015, p. 327), regulatory fog (Frederick 1986), blurry and fuzzy (Godfrey and Hatch 2007), unclear to consumers (Öberseder, Schlegelmilch, and Gruber 2011), malleable, fuzzy, and virtually impossible to validate or refute empirically (Devinney 2009).

The responsibility companies have to society always has been and still is a moving target in line with society's changing expectations. In the following, a very brief and necessarily incomplete chronologic overview of the historic interplay between ideologic, political, and economic forces and Social Responsibility in Marketing is provided.

SRM Under Different Economic, Political and Ideologic Conditions: A Brief Walk-Through Time

The purpose of this exercise it to (1) explicate the dynamic, value laden, and socially constructed nature of SRM and (2) test the fit and relevance of the comprehensive SRM definition postulated by Laczniak and Shultz (2021) as a normative ethical ideal under very different conditions. This is important since a truly inspiring definition of SRM has to be narrow enough to guide action and, at the same time, broad enough to withstand economic, political and ideological change.

While it is possible to conceptually separate different time spans and economic and ideologic conditions as proof of concept, this is not an accurate historic description. Indeed, there always has been an overlap of several influential ideologic, political and economic forces at one time.

Classical Antiquity

Cicero (106–143 B.C.), the Roman philosopher and statesman, analyzed three typical SRM issues: A monopolist's pricing decision who had the only supply of grain during a famine at Rhodes, selling a defective house while the buyer is not aware of the defects, and selling a piece of real estate while misstating the true condition of the property (Richards 1997). Cicero suggested that business and marketing are inextricably interwoven with all other parts of a person's life. A person should strive to develop his character by living a virtuous life. In line with the classic Greek ideology, virtues such as Integrity, Fairness, Trust, Respect, and Empathy constitute unwavering, universally valid values (Laczniak and Murphy 1993; Murphy 1999). Adhering to those values in all areas of life will enable a human being to become a better person, which in turn is the overarching and ultimate goal (Aristotle 1972).

Since SRM was not the responsibility of companies but of people, there was no social contract. However, just as demanded by the social contract, marketers - in pursuit of developing and practicing the basic virtues - had social obligations that “are far more expansive than only economic functions” (Laczniak and Shultz 2021, p. 207). Further, the categorical rule to practice the basic virtues in all aspects of life is consistent with the normative ethical framework of distributive justice, which is used in the Laczniak and Shultz (2021) definition to evaluate SRM. While John Rawls’ Theory of Justice (1971) has been written two thousand years later and is much more suited for an ethical evaluation of modern markets, the concept of fairness in the classic Greek virtue ethics would lead in practice to similar social obligations for marketers. Like Distributive Justice, the classic virtues go beyond “direct market exchange and extends to all stakeholders affected by marketing practice” (Laczniak and Shultz 2021).

Paternalism

In accordance with the ideology of Paternalism, which has a long history in Europe and to a lesser degree in the United States dating back to even before the Industrial Revolution, the owner of a company or plantation is responsible for the wellbeing of the people who are affected by his actions (Nill and Papp 2020). The assumption is that the patriarch, like a father knows best what is good for “his people” in all aspects of life. While Paternalism has been criticized for its disregard of a person's autonomy, freedom, and liberty as well as the belief that individuals don't know what's good for them, it established a responsibility of business owners for their stakeholders (Sneddon 2001). The main justification for this social responsibility is based on the moral duty that comes with power. The possession of land and production facilities created unchallenged power for their owners in the late 18^th and most of the 19^th century. Society expected that the patriarch – like a father – uses this power in a way that also benefits others, specifically those who are under his influence. “The logic was that the authority of the owner/father implied a certain form of responsibility to the members/employees/children of the firm that went well beyond the provision of a salary” (Djelic and Etchanchu 2017, p. 644).

Similar to SRM in the classical antiquity, there was no separation between the social responsibility of people and companies. In general, this is true for most societies before the industrial revolution. That is, in a teleologically ordered world all areas of life, including business and the sciences, were under the dictum of unifying metaphysical norms such as a virtuous life for the Greek and Romans or the duty to use power for the benefit of the society in Paternalism (Habermas 1976). Thus, arguably, SRM was not justified by a social contract but by those overarching societal norms. Nonetheless, business owners and farmers had the responsibility to benefit their stakeholders in accordance with the power they were yielding. This is in line with Laczniak and Shultz (2021, p. 41): “The responsibility to fulfill Corporate Citizenship is commensurate with corporate power”. However, arguably, since running a business was inseparably interwoven with running all other aspects of life, it was rather the responsibility of a person than that of a corporation. Thus, the social responsibilities called for by good Corporate Citizenship - one of the core elements in the Laczniak and Shultz (2021) doctrine of SRM – were still relevant at that time but applied directly to the person, the business owner.

As it is true today, the line between hypothetical and categorical imperatives in pursuing this responsibility was blurry. The high demand for workers created a labor shortage in the U.S. before the mid-19^th century (Stearns 2007). Therefore, providing benefits such as housing to workers and their families was likely not only motivated by doing good because it is the right thing to do but also by the goal to improve the bottom line. The same was true 30 years later when companies started providing benefits for sickness, accidents, and death to families of employees. At that time, the unsafe and poor working conditions lead to labor strikes, lockouts, and often arson of factories by resentful employees (Eichar 2016). Nonetheless, there were certainly companies pioneering social responsibility - such as the railroad industry in the U.S. - that provided benefits to their stakeholders without a profit motive. Many of these benefits (sick leave, safe working conditions, minimum pay etc.) became enshrined in laws and regulations over time (Nill and Papp 2020). That is, what started out as activities following categorical imperatives became activities in line with hypothetical imperatives.

Clearly, Stakeholder Orientation – another one of the core elements in the Laczniak and Shultz (2020) definition of SRM – was also relevant under the ideologic and economic conditions at that time: The patriarch had to assume responsibility for the wellbeing of the people who are affected by his actions.

Interestingly, there were already some nascent movements to protect the environment (the third definiens in the Laczniak and Shultz (2020) definition of SRM) such as the Society for the Prevention of Smoke, which has been founded by a group of business leaders in 1892 (Husted 2014).. Finally, the normative framework of Distributive Justice could be used to ethically evaluate the social responsibility activities of business owners at that time.

Trusteeship

“great wealth should be redistributed, not by giving small sums to the poor, but by administering wealth for the common good”

The general idea and ideological underpinning of trusteeship was that corporations have a moral obligation to use their resources to the benefit of society and of the common good (Husted 2014). As the teleological world order lost its dominance, modern society followed the principle of functional differentiation with business becoming a subsystem of society following its own rules and objectives (Luhmann 1988). This functional differentiation allowed for great efficiencies and ushered modern society into an area of unprecedented economic wealth and prosperity. The price to be paid for these efficiencies and ensuing material wealth is the separation, the uncoupling, of business from society (Luhmann 1988). Thus, this separation created a need for business - not just for people - to be socially responsible. In essence, this is an implicit social contract, which reflects the expectations of society concerning the rights and responsibilities of companies. In turn, “the social contract is the explanation and justification for caring about and engaging in SRM” (Laczniak and Shultz 2021, p. 207). Further, good corporate citizenship - one of the core definiens of SRM in the Laczniak and Shultz (2021) definition – became essential once the unity of moral decision making has been broken up. In other words, once the person got separated from the company, personhood is ascribed to companies to avoid a moral vacuum.

As a response to the abysmal living and working conditions created by unbridled capitalism and laisse fair economics, the class struggle was in full bloom in Europe in the middle of the 19^th century. The public in the U.S. was slower to react because access to ownership of cheap land and the influx of immigrants provided relief for American laborers. However, as Friedrich Engels (1820–1895) (1845, Appendix ii) warned early on: “America has outgrown this early stage. The boundless backwoods have disappeared, … … The great safety-valve against the formation of a permanent proletarian class has practically ceased to act”. At the beginning of the 20^th century, Gnatt (1919, p. 5), a prominent business consultant urgently called for businesses to become socially responsible to avoid the class struggle Friedrich Engels warned about thirty years earlier: “The business system must accept its social responsibility and devote itself primarily to service, or the community will ultimately make the attempt to take it over in order to operate it in its own interest”

While avoiding a protracted class struggle, the public in the U.S. became more critical of the capitalist system and increasingly expected corporations to assume responsibilities that used to be reserved for people( Nill and Papp (2020). Corporations were increasingly supposed to look out for the wellbeing of the society they operate in. In turn, many corporations started to provide public goods such as pension plans, consumer credit, unemployment insurance, health care, and profit-sharing schemes for employees as Proctor and Gamble Company or Brewster & Company of New York City did (Eichar 2016). Thus, arguably, the area of trusteeship was not only inspired by the desire to do good (categorical imperatives) but also to pacify the public and avoid unrest (hypothetical imperatives). Nonetheless, some companies such as Carnegie Steel company, which among other things provided saving plans and subsidized mortgages (Gilman, 1899), were some of the early adopters of the ideology behind trusteeship in the spirit of categorical imperatives. Andrew Carnegie argued: “This, then, is held to be the duty…. of wealth: …to consider all surplus revenues …. simply as trust funds …to produce the most beneficial results for the community” Carnegie (1899, p. 661).

As it was true in former eras, some of the actions pioneering companies took in the spirit of categorical imperatives became more widely embraced by other companies over time. As such, these actions now often became a means to improve the bottom line.

While conceived more than a hundred years later, the three core elements of the Laczniak and Shultz (2021) framework as well as their justification for SRM – the social contract – all seem to be relevant in the area of trusteeship. Further, the actual actions taken by companies at that time can ethically be evaluated using the concept of distributive justice.

Societal Expectations for Being Socially Responsible in Business and Marketing Keep Shifting Over Time

In the aftermath of the great depression many of the responsibilities that have been assumed by corporations were now thought of as government authority. That is, many of the actions performed by marketers in the spirit of being socially responsible were now increasingly mandated by law and/or performed by government institutions (Nill and Papp 2020). As proclaimed by President Roosevelt (1933) in his inaugural speech, government has a moral obligation to support and protect the public via intervention in and regulation of the economy (Nelson 1990).

After WWII the pendulum shifted again as many publicly traded and professionally managed MNCs became so powerful that they could profoundly influence public policy. Still today, some big MNCs operating in countries with failed state agencies assume responsibilities that have been traditionally reserved for the government such as public health, education, social security, and protection of human rights (Scherer and Palazzo 2011).

The structural economic downturn that started at the end of the Vietnam War led to another shift in public sentiment concerning the social responsibility of companies in the United States, eventually paving the way for the Neoliberal ideology to become more dominant once again. In line with the ideological belief that private companies were more efficient than government, President Reagan's policies ushered in a period of deregulation and reduction of government interference. Thus, many of the tasks traditionally considered of as government's responsibilities, were transferred to the private industry separating the sphere of government and corporate responsibilities anew (Nill and Papp 2020).

Finally, triggered by the great recession, the trend towards privatization of government responsibilities came to an end more than a decade ago and the ideological paradigm seems to be changing again. As evidenced by the significant increase of peer reviewed journal articles over the last decade, there is renewed interest in CSR. Potentially as a response to contemporary problems such as global warming, the increasing divide between rich and poor, and global supply chain issues (from just in time to just in case), the social responsibility of marketers is increasingly more broadly discussed – explicitly including responsibilities that go beyond shareholder value maximization – than it was in the traditional Neoliberal ideology.

Conclusion

“It is impossible to think of anything at al1 in the world, or indeed even beyond it, that could be taken to be good without limitation, except a GOOD WILL.”

The meaning of being responsible in business and marketing has constantly been shifting in line with changing ideologic paradigms and economic and political conditions. As a normative-ethical ideal, the Laczniak and Shultz (2021) doctrine of SRM is abstract and flexible enough to be applicable under these very different conditions. At the same time, it is concrete and specific enough to provide actionable guidance.

SRM actions always have been guided by hypothetical and/or categorical imperatives. However, companies that are doing the right thing because it is right might become less competitive. As a consequence of being weaker, these companies can no longer afford to be this ethical.

This potential paradox might be dissolved by realizing that the meaning of social responsibility in marketing is socially constructed and has always been changing over time. As discussed above, the general idea here is that many SRM activities that pioneering companies once pursued in an effort to follow categorical imperatives became embodied in ethical custom and/or enshrined in law eventually. Thus, the same SRM activities, which once followed categorical imperatives - with the potential downside of lowering competitiveness – became standard business practice. Adhering to established values and norms is good business and akin to following hypothetical imperatives. For example, the National Cash Register was one of the pioneering companies that in an effort to be socially responsible regardless of the bottom line - spoke out against child labor more than hundred fifty years ago (Tolman 1900). Of course, today it would be rather cynical to call a company socially responsible because it is not putting children to work. Indeed, practicing child labor in the U.S. is not only illegal, it also would hurt the bottom line with almost certainty. The baseline of acceptable corporate practice shifts in line with changing societal norms and values. Thus, corporate practices (such as not hiring children) were “unheard of” at one point, “responsible” at later point in time, “expected” at a third, and “required” at a fourth (Rivoli and Waddock 2011).

However, it seems shortsighted to interpret the described dynamic character of SRM in a way that there is no need for pioneering companies. This would be similar to the neoliberal argument to dismiss categorical SMR because “conforming to the basic rules of the society, both embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom” is the only corporate responsibility beyond making “as much money as possible” (Friedman 1970). Pioneering companies following categorical imperatives act as change agents. In other words, it often is the actions of these proactive companies, which embrace unconditional SRM, that instigate change. Put it differently, change would be much more difficult to come by if social responsibility were reduced to reactively following laws and customs.

The inspirational doctrine of SRM by Laczniak and Shultz (2021) offers a normative-ethical road map for companies to follow categorical imperatives and pursue socially responsible business practices before these practices become widely expected and/or mandated by law. In other words, the Laczniak and Shultz (2021) definition provides marketers with normative guidance to maneuver SRM in untested waters. That is, the doctrine can help companies to assess their business practices from an ethical point of view in situations where the present societal expectations, laws, and regulations do not (yet) provide sufficient direction.