A Retrospective and Prospective Commentary
Lawrence B. Chonko
BAYLORUNIVERSITYShelby D. Hunt
TEXASTECHUNIVERSITYThe Authors thank theJournal of Business Researchfor awarding its 1. The most often mentioned ethical problem faced by marketers is bribery. Five other issues (fairness, honesty,
Quality and Impact in Marketing Scholarship Award to our 1985 article,
pricing strategy, product strategy, and personnel
de-“Ethics and Marketing Management.” In this article, provide a
retro-cisions) were also frequently cited as difficult ethical
spective that examines how subsequent research has extended our findings
problems.
and provide a prospective that suggests directions for future research.
2. The primary ethical conflict reported by marketing
man-J BUSN RES2000. 50.235–244. 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights
agers involved balancing demands of the corporation
reserved.
against customer needs.
3. Marketing managers perceive many opportunities in their firms and industries to engage in unethical
behav-T
o have one’s work accepted for publication is gratifying;ior. However, they reported that few managers engaged to have it cited and extended by other researchers is
in such behaviors. even more gratifying; to have it viewed as seminal and
4. Marketing managers do not believe that unethical be-important by a major journal is an absolute delight. We thank
haviors in general lead to success. However, many be-theJournal of Business Researchfor selecting our article, “Ethics
lieve that successful marketing managers do engage in and Marketing Management: An Empirical Examination”
certain specific unethical behaviors. (Chonko and Hunt, 1985; hereafter, “EMM”) to receive its
5. When top management reprimands unethical behavior, Quality and Impact in Marketing Scholarship Award. We also
the ethical problems perceived by marketing managers thankJBR for the opportunity to provide this retrospective
seem to be reduced. and prospective commentary on EMM. Needless to say, but
6. The existence of corporate or industry codes of ethics we say it anyway, the award is a highlight in our research
seems to be unrelated to the extent of unethical prob-careers. The award also bodes well for stimulating future
lems in marketing management. research on ethics.
We begin our retrospective by examining how empirical re-This commentary is not a review of marketing ethics since
search subsequent to our 1985 article addressed and extended EMM’s publication in 1985. Instead, given that an important
each of these conclusions. consideration for the award was citation analysis, we thought it
advisable that this commentary focus on taking a retrospective
look at the kinds of ethics research projects that have cited
Ethical Problems of
EMM and then provide a prospective look at topics for furtherMarketing Practitioners
research. At the outset, we note that EMM, based on a sample
of 1076 marketing professionals drawn from the membership Concern about ethical issues in marketing has long been noted of the American Marketing Association, came to six major in marketing practice. Indeed, Baumhart (1961) examined conclusions: the ethical problems that business practitioners wanted to eliminate and found that five of the top eight practices were specifically related to marketing: (1) gifts, gratuities, bribes,
Address correspondence to Dr. Lawrence B. Chonko, Baylor University, Han- and “call girls”; (2) price discrimination and unfair pricing; kamer School of Business, Waco, TX 76798 USA. E-mail address: Larry_
Chonko@baylor.edu (3) dishonest advertising; (4) cheating customers; and (5)
Journal of Business Research 50, 235–244 (2000)
2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. ISSN 0148-2963/00/$–see front matter
price collusion. Baumhart’s findings, subsequently replicated the studies were conducted with the participation of marketing practitioners. Fourth, as might be expected, most subsequent by Brenner and Molander (1977), prompted Murphy and
works (about 90%) have used samples drawn from the United Laczniak (1981) to famously conclude that “the function
States. However, an increasing number of studies have used within business firms most often charged with ethical abuse
samples from other countries, including Australia, Canada, is marketing” (p. 251). Given the concern about marketing
Turkey, and South Africa. The trend toward non-U.S. samples ethics among business practitioners, it is no surprise, then,
is one that we wholeheartedly support. that marketing ethics research among academics has become
Fifth, examining the issues investigated by subsequent re-increasingly viewed as important.
searchers reveals a wide variety of specific contexts in which Many, if not most, studies of marketing ethics take a
norma-the ethical problems occur. For example, with respect to norma-the tive approach. That is, researchers focus on developing
guide-general category of “fairness,” researchers have examined pass-lines and rules to determine the ethical choice in a decision
ing blame (Akaah and Lund, 1994), authorizing rules viola-situation and assist marketers in their efforts to behave in an
tions (Akaah and Lund, 1994), using false information to ethical manner. Other studies, especially in the last two
de-create a customer–product fit (Dawson, 1997), and treating cades, are positive, rather than normative. That is, researchers
advertising suppliers/other agencies fairly (Hunt and Chonko, develop theories and models that attempt to describe, explain,
1987). Research on “honesty,” has included concealing one’s and predict such ethical phenomena as ethical judgments,
errors (Akaah and Lund, 1994), the sale of an inferior product intentions, behaviors, and issues. Much of the positive
re-that yields a higher commission (Glover et al., 1997), manipu-search uses scenarios to explore the reactions of subjects to
lating sales contest rules (Dawson, 1997), and company integ-situations that have been predetermined by the researchers
rity in dealing with customers (Bourne and Snead, 1995). to have ethical content. Instead of the predetermined, ethical/
With respect to “product,” researchers have examined parts unethical, scenario approach, EMM focused on determining
specifications (Loo, 1996), quality control (Hite et al., 1988), the ethical issues that marketing practitioners themselves
and changing labels to increase consumption (Merritt, 1991). viewed to be important in their daily work experience.
As a final example, numerous studies related to “personnel” In EMM, we reported the “ten most difficult ethical
prob-have included works on the use of consulting psychologists lems” that our sample of 1,076 marketing professionals
indi-to handle an employee problem (Dawson, 1997), favoritism cated that they experienced in their work. In descending order
in promotion (Ede et al., 2000), overworking salespeople of frequency of mention, the problem categories were: (1)
(Burns et al., 1994), dating company employees/management bribery, (2) fairness, (3) honesty, (4) pricing, (5) product, (6)
(Burns et al., 1994), trying to get employees to quit (Burns personnel, (7) confidentiality, (8) advertising, (9)
manipula-et al., 1994), not maintaining technological compmanipula-etence (Mar-tion of data, and (10) purchasing. Four other issues, which
shall et al., 1998), use of coercive power (Harris and Sutton, were mentioned much less frequently by respondents, were 1995), resume` inflation (Dabholkar and Kellaris, 1992), treat-abuse of office, compromising personal beliefs, conflicts of ing employees with dignity (Bourne and Snead, 1995), and interest, and goal setting. It is important to note that these pay fairness (Bourne and Snead, 1995).
14 problems were not necessarily the ones most often experi- The ethical issues identified by EMM, therefore, appear to enced by our respondents. Rather, these were the issues that have provided a major focus for subsequent research. Issues respondents indicated were most difficult for them. not identified by EMM, but receiving attention, include pollu-Table 1 displays the 14 issues that we identified and the tion, budget considerations, nonreporting of violations, and extent to which subsequent researchers (who cited EMM) refusing to help customers (Akaah and Lund, 1994; Burns extended our work on each of the problems. Table 1 also etal., 1994; Loo, 1996). Furthermore, the most frequently identifies the populations that subsequent researchers exam- cited issues identified by EMM have been stressed more by ined. Studying the table reveals several interesting patterns: subsequent researchers than those issues infrequently men-First, every issue that EMM identified has been investigated tioned. In short, subsequent research has tended to focus on further and found to be important by at least one subsequent important ethical issues. Moreover, subsequent researchers piece of empirical research. Thus, the issues EMM identified have most often used marketing and business practitioners as were not idiosyncratic to our sample. Second, over 90% of samples and the samples have, increasingly, been drawn from subsequent works have addressed one or more of the first outside the United States. Finally, subsequent research has three most difficult issues. Therefore, the issues that were examined the ethical issues identified in EMM in a wide variety generally identified most frequently as very difficult for mar- of specific contexts.
keting practitioners have been the subject of a great deal of
additional research.
Ethical Conflicts Faced
Third, unlike many research areas in marketing, the useby Marketers
of students as the populations studied has been relatively
Table 1.Ethical Issues Addressed Subsequent to EMM
Study 1a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Population
Abratt et al., 1992 X X X X X South African/Australian
Managers
Akaah, 1992 X X X X X X AMA Professionals
Akaah, 1996 X X X X AMA Professionals
Akaah and Lund, 1994 X X X X Marketing Managers
Armstrong, 1992 X X X Australian Exporters
Bass and Hebert, 1995 X AMA Professionals
Bass et al., 1998 X X X AMA Professionals
Belizzi, 1995 X X X Sales Managers
Bellizzi and Hasty, 1998 X Sales Managers
Bellizzi and Hite, 1989 X X X AMA Professionals
Borkowski and Ugras, 1992 X X Students
Bourne and Snead, 1999 X X X X Business Executives
Boyle, 2000 X Salespeople
Burns et al., 1994 X X Students
Chan and Armstrong, 1999 X X X Australian/Canadian
Exporters
Dabholkar and Kellaris, 1992 X X X X X Students
Dawson, 1997 X X X X X X X X Members of Professional
Associations
DeConinck, 1992 X X Sales Managers
DeConinck and Lewis, 1997 X X Sales Managers
Dorsch et al., 1997 X Purchasing Executives
Dubinsky and Loken, 1989 X X SME Members
Dubinsky et al., 1992 X X X X X Salespeople
Ede et al. (2000) X X X X X X Minority Business Owners
Ekin and Tezolmez, 1999 X X X X X Turkish Managers
Finn et al., 1988 X X X Accounting Professionals
Fraedrich, 1993 X X Retail Managers
Glover et al., 1997 X X X X X Students
Harris and Sutton, 1995 X X Students/Business Executives
Hite et al., 1988 X X X X X X X X X X CEOs
Hoffman et al., 1991 X X X X Sales Agents
Hunt and Chonko, 1987 X X X X X Ad Agency Executives
Kelley et al., 1990 X X Marketing Researchers
Loo, 1996 X X X X X X X Students
Marshall et al., 1998 X X Australian Tax Agents
Merritt, 1991 X X X X X X AMA Professionals
Morris et al., 1996 X X X South African Marketing
Researchers
Pratt, 1991 X X X X X Public Relations Practitioner
Reiss and Mitra, 1998 X Students
Schwepker and Ingram, 1996 X X Sales Executives
Singhapakdi and Vitell, 1991a X Salespeople
Singhapakdi and Vitell, 1992 X Services Marketing
Professionals
Singhapakdi and Vitell, 1993 X X X AMA Professionals
Singhapakdi et al., 1996a X X AMA Professionals
Singhapakdi et al., 1996b X X AMA Professionals
Singhapakdi et al., 1999 X X AMA Professionals
Thumin et al., 1995 X X Advertising Professionals
Weeks and Nantel, 1992 X Salespeople
aEthical issues cited as most difficult by marketing managers in Chonko, Lawrence B. and Hunt, Shelby D. (1985) “Ethical and Marketing Management: An Empirical Investigation,”
Journal of Business Research, 13, 339–359 were: (1) bribery, (2) fairness, (3) honesty, (4) price, (5) product, (6) personnel, (7) confidentiality, (8) advertising, (9) manipulation of
sponsibilities toward some other group (including one’s own many opportunities for unethical behavior, but they also be-lieve that few colleagues engage in unethical behavior (e.g., self). Ethical conflict prompts attempts to resolve opposing
obligations. The marketing managers in our study reported Marshall et al., 1998; Armstrong, 1992; Vitell and Davis, 1990b; Finn et al., 1988).
12 different conflicts. However, four major conflicts accounted
for almost 70% of responses. These were, in descending order It is gratifying to see that so many studies have employed of frequency, balancing corporate interest versus the interests the scales we created to assess opportunity for unethical behav-of the (1) customer, (2) self, (3) society, and (4) subordinates. ior. However, further work is needed. EMM may, in fact, be Since EMM, few researchers have explicitly addressed the viewed as a norm score against which specific findings of other nature and frequency of conflicts. However, many works have studies could be compared. Indeed, as ethical climates change, done so implicitly. For example, Glover et al. (1997) examined it would be interesting to track how various populations the conflict experienced by investment bankers who had change their views on opportunities for unethical behavior. friends employed in a firm about to be purchased by a
com-pany having little management expertise. Others have
ad-Unethical Behavior
dressed external stakeholder issues (Bourne and Snead, 1995),
the role of significant others’ influence on ethical decision
and Success
making (Chonko et al., 1996 ), self interests versus theinter-EMM reported that marketing managers do not believe that ests of the company (Glover et al, 1997), managing customer
unethical behaviors in general lead to success. Only 8% agreed relationships (Kurland, 1996), relationships with significant
that “Successful marketing managers in my COMPANY are others (Hoffman et al., 1991), managing work relationships
generally more unethical than unsuccessful managers.” Like-(Bourne and Snead, 1995), and the influence of peers (Akaah,
wise, only 26% agreed that “In order to succeed in my com-1992; Crown and Spiller, 1998). Furthermore, Singhapakdi
pany, it is often necessary to compromise one’s ethics.” How-et al. (1996a) examined How-ethical scenarios involving product
ever, many believe that successful marketing managers do defects (company versus customer), value exaggerations
(com-engage in certain specific unethical behaviors. Significant pany versus customer, personal versus customer), higher
numbers of managers believe that successful managers in their prices in the ghetto (customer versus company), and the
mis-company (1) withhold information that is detrimental to their representation of information (company versus customer),
self interests (43%); (2) make rivals look bad in the eyes of and Hite et al. (1988) addressed conflicts of interest in their
important people in their company (29%); (3) look for a examination of policy statements.
“scapegoat” when they feel they may be associated with failure Most ethics research employing scenarios implicitly focuses
(32%); and (4) take credit for the ideas and accomplishments on conflicts of interest. Individual decision makers can be
of others (48%). viewed as actors in a web of relationships (Niebuhr, 1963).
The findings of EMM on ethics and success items have Individuals tend to “fit” actions in response to others who are
been replicated in subsequent research. Marshall et al. (1998) involved in this web, which Fritzche (1991) describes as the
report that unethical behavior was not needed for success. individual’s role set. Chonko et al. (1996) call for scenario
They also report that managers felt little need to compromise work concerning conflicts of interest in which stakeholders
ethics to be successful. These findings parallel those reported and relevant sales and marketing information are manipulated
by Vitell and Davis (1990b) and Armstrong (1992). sequentially to understand how changes in stakeholders
im-Like the assessment of ethical opportunities, the studies pacts ethical decision-making.
reported above use EMM’s success scales. We called for further research on success and its relationship to ethical/unethical
Opportunities for
behavior. While some studies have examined this relationship, there is clearly much more work to be done. As withopportu-Unethical Behavior
nities for unethical behavior, it would be interesting to track EMM reported that marketing managers perceive many oppor- the changes in perceptions of ethical/unethical behavior and tunities in their firms and industries to engage in unethical success over time. Further, it would also be interesting to behavior. Specifically, 41% agreed that “There are many op- examine how these perceptions relate to such organizational portunities for marketing managers in my COMPANY to en- outcomes as growth and profitability.
gage in unethical behaviors” and 56% agreed that “There are many opportunities for marketing managers in my INDUSTRY
to engage in unethical behaviors.” However, only 12% agreed
The Impact of Top
that managers in their firms engaged in unethical behaviors,Management Actions
while 25% agreed that managers in their industries engagedWhen top management reprimands unethical behavior, the in such behaviors. The ethical opportunities questions
devel-ethical problems perceived by marketing managers seem to oped in our study have been used in subsequent research. In
best predictor of the extent to which managers perceive ethical of an ethical code is no guarantee of its impact on individual decision making. McDonald (2000) calls for codes to be writ-problems. This finding has been corroborated many times
(e.g. Vitell and Davis, 1990a, 1990b; Armstrong, 1992). These ten in simple terms. He further advances the view that codes must specify the commitment of the organization to its em-studies employed the top management scales we developed
in EMM. ployees, not just the employees’ responsibilities regarding ethi-cal performance. Strutton et al. (1997) examine the impact Other researchers have extended EMM on the subject of
the impact of top management actions on ethical behavior. of codes of ethics vis-a`-vis customer expectations as well as instilling proper behaviors through training. They, too, note For example, Vitell and Davis (1990b) find that when top
management actions support ethical behavior, professionals that codes, by themselves, are not effective in influencing behavior. By contrast, Loe et al. (2000) report that codes do are more satisfied with promotion opportunities, coworkers,
supervisors, pay, and the job itself. Belizzi and Hite (1989) influence ethical behavior, perhaps by raising the level of find that the kinds of actions managers take differ depending awareness of ethical issues. Recently, Wotruba et al. (2000) on circumstances. For example, when an unethical behavior find that the usefulness of ethics codes by managers as a occurred, termination was high on the list of remedies if the tool for guiding behavior and decisions is strengthened as violators were poor performers, but such drastic action was managers become more familiar with the specific contents not taken if the violators were good performers. Bellizi and and intentions of codes.
Hite (1989) also report that gender made a difference in how Clearly, there is a role for codes of ethics in organizations. management reacted to ethical violations: women generally If marketing professionals are not provided with some ethical were treated somewhat less harshly. Subsequently, Bellizzi guidance, intraorganizational variations in ethical decision (1995) corroborated this finding, again reporting that females making can be expected to be large. The lack of a corporate are treated less harshly than males in ethical situations. More code of ethics leaves ethical decision making entirely to indi-recently, McDonald (2000) has observed that a commitment viduals who, collectively, are unlikely to have uniformity of by senior management to ethics becoming a part of the strate- ethical values. Future research designs could usefully include gic vision of a company is essential for promoting ethical not just codes, but also such factors as employees’ participation behavior. in code development, training in code use, and information Extensions of EMM have dealt with managerial actions that assisting employees in resolving ethical dilemmas presented would not necessarily be categorized as stemming from top by differences in code provisions. Indeed, such designs offer management (e.g. Bellizzi and Hite, 1989). For example, Wo- excellent opportunities for future research.
truba et al. (2000) report that ethics code familiarity is posi-tively related to ethical judgments and decision-making.
Im-Other Impacts of EMM
plied in such research is communicating top management
values as set forth in ethical codes. If, indeed, top management EMM seems to have influenced other aspects of ethics re-sets the tone for the ethical climate of an organization, research search. Here we examine situational factors, research method, examining the interaction of code familiarity and the activities respondent profiles, and ethical decision processes.
of lower level managers seems to offer great promise in extend-ing the findextend-ings of EMM on the importance of top management.
Situational Factors
There is a growing body of evidence that ethical
decision-The Impact of Corporate/
making is affected by situational factors. EMM examined four situational factors: title, gender, size of firm, and education.Industry Codes of Ethics
TITLE. EMM reported that those higher in an organization EMM reported that the mere existence of an industry or
corpo-are less likely to “see” ethical problems than their counterparts rate code of ethics made little contribution to explaining the
at lower organizational levels. Although not specifically ad-extent of ethical problems in marketing management. This
dressing the issue of perceptions of ethical problems, parallel finding has since been (generally) corroborated by others. For
studies also find that rank has no impact on ethical behavior example, Marshall et al. (1998) report mixed results
concern-in several projects (e.g., Akaah, 1996; Ede et al., 2000; Kelley ing the impact of codes on ethical behavior. Morris et al.
et al., 1990). Likewise, research on years of experience shows (1996) find that codes are ineffective and that belief in code
mixed effects on ethical behavior (Glover et al., 1997; Kelley effectiveness declines as standards decline. Ekin and Tezolmez
et al., 1990). Years of experience was positively related to (1999) find that personal codes were far more influential on
ethical discomfort, as reported by Dorsch et al. (1997), but behavior than company codes. Weeks and Nantel (1992) also
not related to ethical behavior in a study by Fraedrich (1993). find codes to be ineffective but add that well communicated
Years of experience has been found to be correlated with codes do help improve ethical behavior.
confidence in ethical decision making in two of four scenarios Maes et al. (1998) note that codes represent an attempt to
review of ethics, Loe et al. (2000) conclude that years of allowed readers to gain a better picture of respondents and help readers formulate their own thoughts on study findings experience was insignificant in their relationship to ethical
decision making, while Ford and Richardson (1994) report and limitations. Many authors have used the format we pre-sented in our study of marketing managers.
mixed results.
GENDER. Our finding that males reported fewer ethical
prob-Ethical Decision Processes
lems than females has served as a catalyst for a number of
EMM called for further study of ethical decision processes. subsequent investigations of gender and ethics. EMM’s
find-We also called for research that examines the trade-offs made ings have been corroborated by Loe et al. (2000) and Ford
by mangers dealing with ethical decision-making situations. and Richardson (1994). Though several studies find that
fe-DeConinck and Lewis (1997) examine the impact of deonto-males tend to exhibit more ethical tendencies (e.g. Glover et
logical philosophy on ethical decision-making. They report al., 1997; Dawson, 1997; Singhapakdi et al., 1996a; Harris
that, when consequences of actions are positive, fewer manag-and Sutton, 1995; Ekin manag-and Tezolmez, 1999), others report
ers are likely to see decisions as unethical than if consequences mixed or nonsignificant results concerning gender (e.g. Loo,
of actions are negative. When the action clearly was unethical, 1996; Fraedrich, 1993; Bass and Hebert, 1995; Singhapakdi
and the consequences were negative, managers prefer more and Vitell, 1991b). Sparks and Hunt (1998) find no differences
severe punishments. When actions were ethical and conse-between males and females in ethical sensitivity. Finally, Robin
quences positive, managers tend to offer more rewards. In and Babin (1997) report no gender differences regarding
be-another study involving deontological and teleological consid-havioral intentions on six ethical decision scenarios. They
fur-erations, Harris ands Sutton (1995) observe that deontologi-ther report that, in an examination of fourteen studies using 128
cally oriented individuals are less tolerant of unethical behav-scenarios, only 27 of these scenarios produced gender
differ-ior than teleologically oriented individuals. ences, which leads them to the conclusion that gender
differ-Castleberry et al. (1993), like Goolsby and Hunt (1992), ences may not be as pronounced as once thought. We concur.
find that marketing researchers are similar to other groups in
SIZE OF FIRM. EMM also reported that respondents in larger their moral reasoning levels. Boyle (2000) reports that manag-firms were more likely to see ethical problems than those in ers who score high on relativism are more likely to judge the smaller firms. However, this variable has received little atten- actions of salespeople as ethical than managers scoring low tion in subsequent research. on relativism. Boyle also finds that low relativist males view
actions of salespeople as more ethical than low relativist female
EDUCATION. Finally, EMM reported that respondents with
managers. Singhapakdi and Vitell (1990) report that high technical educational backgrounds were less likely to see
ethi-moral intensity is correlated with higher ethical perceptions. cal problems than respondents with business, social science,
Schwepker and Ingram (1996) find in their study of moral humanities, or other nontechnical education. However, this
judgment that higher moral judgment is related to higher finding has generally not been supported in subsequent
stud-salesperson performance. Singhapakdi and Vitell (1993) ex-ies (e.g. Reiss and Mitra, 1998; Fraedrich, 1993; Merritt, 1991;
amine the impact of personal and professional values on ethi-Kelley et al., 1990). Ford and Richardson report mixed results
cal decision making and find only the former to have an in their examination of education (both type and length) and
influence. Bass et al. (1998) report that ethical judgments of ethics, while Loe et al. (2000) report that the relationship
sales managers vary by personal moral philosophy, but ethical between education and ethics was nonsignificant.
intentions do not.
Research Method
A number of researchers have employed all or parts of the
A Prospective Look
research method used in our study of marketing managers.Chan and Armstrong (1999) examine major ethical problems Where does marketing ethics research go from here? Although and their frequency and importance in their study of Canadian our list of suggested topics is by no means exhaustive, we can and Australian exporters. As noted earlier, several researchers provide some tentative directions to consideration.
(e.g., Armstrong, 1992; Vitell and Davis, 1990a, 1990b; Mar- First, consider the question: “What factors influence the shall et al., 1998) have employed our scales for opportunities, recognition of ethical problems?” This question is addressed success, behavior, and top management actions in their efforts. by Sparks and Hunt (1998), who observe that ethical sensitiv-Hoffman et al. (1991) employ the nominal group technique ity has two major conceptualizations: (1) the ability to recog-to identify key ethical issues in their study of insurance pro- nize that a decision making situation has ethical content fessionals. (1989); and (2) the view of Volker (1984) that both the recognition of ethical content and the importance of the ethical
Respondent Profiles
issue comprise ethical sensitivity. Sparks and Hunt (1998) find that the two definitions of ethical sensitivity are empirically How should respondent profile data be presented in a study?sensi-tivity does not imply ethicality, (2) individuals unaware of interwoven into strategic planning (Thompson, 1995). Fruit-the ethical content of a decision might behave differently if ful areas of research include the wisdom of including ethics the ethical nature of the decision was made known to them, in corporate vision statements, the nature of top management and (3) ethical sensitivity is context specific, i.e., organizations, actions that inspire ethical behavior, and the interaction of professions, and industries develop norms of ethical behavior codes of conduct and top management actions and their im-that are not necessarily transferable from one profession to the pact on the climate of the organization. As Robin and Reiden-next. Moreover, their results show that the ethical sensitivity of bach (1987) observe, “Seldom are the moral or ethical dimen-marketing researchers is a positive function of organizational sions of exchange strategy integrated into the [strategic socialization and perspective taking, but a negative function marketing] process” (p. 47). Further research might focus on of relativism and formal training in ethics. However, much the actions of managers when they are faced with differential more research on ethical sensitivity is needed. For example, consequences, individual differences of employees, and dif-the relationship between ethical sensitivity and such factors as fering performance levels of employees. Does treating people ethical judgments, deontological norms, and ethical behaviors differently for the same behaviors undermine the impact that would be useful. codes and top management actions can have on the ethics of
Second, Dunfee, Smith, and Ross (1999) advocate the social the organization?
contract perspective on marketing ethics. Their integrated Sixth, codes of ethics, by themselves, are ineffective in social contracts theory stresses the importance of multiple reducing unethical behavior. However, it appears that the community norms, screening community norms for legiti- existence of codes, when combined with other organizational macy under the “hypernorm” test, and screening the legitimate activities, can have an impact on the ethics of an organization. norms for dominance under priority rules. Ethical judgments, In particular, several researchers have suggested factors that then, are argued to be based on dominant, legitimate norms. would appear to be interesting when juxtaposed to codes We agree that their approach is insightful and that it offers the of ethics and top management actions. These issues include opportunity for significant empirical research. For example, personal and professional values (Akaah and Lund, 1994), identifying relevant marketing communities and the norms of locus of control (Reiss and Mitra (1998), achievement orienta-these communities would seem to be important. Dunfee, tion (Glover et al., 1997), environmental turbulence (Morris Smith, and Ross (1999) suggest that further research identi- et al., 1996), idealism and relativism (Singhapakdi et al., fying hypernorms that would transcend marketing communi- 1999), and Machiavellianism (Singhapakdi and Vitell, 1990). ties would also be important. They identify, as a starting point, Further research on these factors appears warranted. hypernorms associated with dignity, promises, deception, In conclusion, since the publication of “Ethics and Market-property rights, and bribery (p. 30). We concur that this is ing Management” by theJournal of Business Researchin 1985, a useful starting point. much progress has been made on the subject of ethics in Third, the conflicts faced by marketers are many and com- marketing. Nonetheless, much remains to be done to under-plex and EMM identifies the major types of conflicts that stand the nature of marketing ethics and to assist managers marketers face. However, though the simple enumeration of in their efforts to improve marketing ethics performance. We pair-wise conflicts serves as a starting point, there is much to hope that this commentary has provided at least some guid-learn concerning how marketers go about making decisions ance on important questions and issues to pursue.
and trade-offs when confronted with these conflict situations. For, example do different pairs of conflicts trigger different
decision processes or do they prompt the same decision proc-
References
esses with different values for the factors considered?Abratt, Russell, Nel, Deon, and Higgs, Nicola Susan: An Examination
Fourth, some research has been undertaken to assess the of the Ethical Beliefs of Managers Using Selcted Scenarios in a relationship of ethical decision-making to ethical opportuni- Cross-Cultural Environment.Journal of Business Ethics11 (1992): ties and success. However, EMM found that most marketers 29–35.
will report that they have a higher level of ethics than do their Akaah, Ishmael: Social Inclusion as a Marketing Ethics Correlate. peers and will also report that they engage in less questionable Journal of Business Ethics.11 (1992): 599–608.
activity than their peers. Obviously, everyone cannot be more Akaah, Ishmael: The Influence of Organizational Rank and Role on ethical than everyone else. Further work is needed to gain Marketing Professionals’ Ethical Judgments. Journal of Business understanding of what leads marketers to believe they are Ethics15 (1996): 605–613.
more ethical than their peers and colleagues. Is this just cyni- Akaah, Ishmael P., and Lund, Daulatram: The Influence of Personal cism? If so, why is cynicism so prevalent? and Organizational Values on Marketing Professionals’ Ethical
Fifth, the evidence seems clear that top management is in Behavior.Journal of Business Ethics13 (1994): 417–430.
a position to have a positive impact on ethical climate and Armstrong, Robert W.: An Empirical Investigation of International ethical behaviors in organizations. An excellent research ques- Marketing Ethics: Problems Encountered by Australian Firms.
Journal of Business Ethics11(1992): 161–171.
Bass, Ken, Barnett, Tim, and Brown, Gene: The Moral Philosophy DeConinck, James B., and Lewis, William F.: The Influence of Deon-of Sales Managers and Its Influence on Ethical Decision Making. tological and Teleological Considerations and Ethical Climate Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management18 (1998): 1–17. on Sales Managers’ Intentions to Reward or Punish Sales Force
Behavior.Journal of Business Ethics16 (1997): 497–506. Bass, Kenneth E., and Hebert, Frederic J.: Individual and Situational
Factors that Influence Managers’ Ethical Judgments.Psychological Dorsch, Michael J., Grove, Stephen J., Pickett, Gregory M, and Kelley,
Reports77 (1995): 727–733. Scott W.: Responses to Gift Giving in a Business Context: An
Empirical Examination.Psychological Reports81 (1997): 947–955. Baumhart, R. C.: How Ethical Are Businessmen?Harvard Business
Review39 (1961): 6–9, 156–157. Dubinsky, Alan J., Jolson, Marvin A., Michaels, Ronald E., Kotabe,
Bellizzi, Joseph A.: Committing and Supervising Unethical Sales Masaaki, and Lim chae, Un: Ethical Perceptions of Field Sales Force Behavior: The Effects of Victim Gender, Victim Status, and Personnel: An Empirical Assessment.Journal of Personal Selling Sales Force Motivational Techniques.Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management12 (1992): 9–21.
and Sales Management15 (1995): 1–15. Dubinsky, Alan J., and Loken, Barbara: Analyzing Ethical Decision
Belizzi, Joseph A., and Hasty, Ronald W.: Territory Assignment Deci- Making in Marketing. Journal of Business Research 19 (1989): sions and Supervising Unethical Selling Behavior: The Effects of 83–107.
Obesity and Gender Moderated by Job-Related Factors.Journal
Dunfee, Thomas W., Smith, N. Craig, and Ross, William T. Jr.: of Personal Selling and Sales Management18 (1998): 35–49.
Social Contracts and Marketing Ethics.Journal of Marketing63 Belizzi, Joseph A., and Hite, Robert E.: Supervising Unethical Sales (3) (1999): 14–32.
Force Behavior.Journal of Marketing53 (1989): 36–47.
Ede, Fred O., Panigrahi, Bhabagan, Stuart, Jon, and Calcich, Stephen: Borkowski, Susan C., and Ugras, Yusus J.: The Ethical Attitudes of Ethics in Small Minority Businesses. Journal of Business Ethics
Students as a Function of Age, Sex, and Experience.Journal of 2000; 26:133–146. Business Ethics11 (1992): 961–979.
Ekin, M. G. Serap, and Tezolmez, S. Hande: Business Ethics in Bourne, Steve, and Snead, John D.: Environmental Determinants of
Turkey: An Empirical Investigation with Special Emphasis on Organizational Ethical Climate: A Community Perspective.Journal
Gender.Journal of Business Ethics18 (1999): 17–34. of Business Ethics21 (1999): 283–290.
Finn, Don W., Chonko, Lawrence B., and Hunt, Shelby D.: Ethical Boyle, Brett A.: The Impact of Customer Characteristics and Moral
Problems in Public Accounting: A View from the Top.Journal of Philosophies on Ethical Judgments of Salespeople.Journal of
Busi-Business Ethics7 (1988): 605–615. ness Ethics23 (2000): 249–267.
Ford, Robert C., and Richardson, Woodrow D.: Ethical Decision Brenner, S. N., and Molander. E. A.: Is the Ethics of Business
Chang-Making: A Review of the Empirical Literature.Journal of Business ing?Harvard Business Review55 (1977): 57–71.
Ethics13 (1994): 205–221. Burns, David J., Fawcett, Jeffrey K, and Lanasa, John: Business
Stu-Fraedrich, Jon Paul: The Ethical Behavior of Retail Managers.Journal dents’ Ethical Perceptions of Retail Situations: A Microcultural
of Business Ethics12 (1993): 207–218. Comparison.Journal of Business Ethics13 (1994): 667–679.
Castleberry, Stephen B., French, Warren, and Carlin, Barbara A.: Fritzche, David J.: A Model of Decision-Making Incorporating Ethical The Ethical Framework of Advertising and Marketing Research Values.Journal of Business Ethics10 (1991): 841–852.
Practitioners: A Moral Development Perspective.Journal of Adver- Glover, Saundra, H.,. Bumpus, Minnette A., Logan, John E., and
tising22 (1993): 39–46. Ciesla, James R.: Re-examining the Influence of Individual Values
Chan, T.S., and Armstrong, Robert W.: Comparative Ethical Report on Ethical decision Making. Journal of Business Research 16 Card: AA Study of Australian and Canadian Managers’ Perceptions (1997):1319–1329.
of International Marketing Ethics Problems.Journal of Business
Goolsby, Jerry R., and Hunt, Shelby D.: Cognitive Moral Develop-Ethics18 (1999): 3–15.
ment and Marketing.Journal of Marketing56 (1992): 55–68. Chonko, Lawrence B., and Hunt, Shelby D: Ethics and Marketing
Harris, James R., and Sutton, Charlotte D.: Unravelling the Ethical Management: An Empirical Examination.Journal of Business
Re-Decision-Making Process: Clues from an Empirical Study Com-search13 (1985): 339–359.
paring Fortune 1000 Executives and MBA Students.Journal of Chonko, Lawrence B., Tanner, John F. Jr., and Weeks, William A.: Business Ethics14 (1995): 805–817.
Ethics in Salesperson Decision Making: A synthesis of Research
Hite, Robert E., Bellizzi, Joseph A., and Frazer, Cynthia: A Content Approaches and an Extension of the Scenario Method.Journal of
Analysis of Ethical Policy Statements Regarding Marketing Activi-Personal Selling and Sales Management16 (1996): 35–52.
ties.Journal of Business Ethics7 (1988): 771–776. Crown, Deborah F., and Spiller, M. Shane: Learning from the
Litera-Hoffman, K. Douglas, Howe, Vince, and Hardigree, Donald W.: ture on Collegiate Cheating: A Review of empirical Research.
Ethical Dilemmas Faced in the Selling of Complex Services: Signif-Journal of Business Ethics17 (1989): 683–700.
icant Others and Competitive Pressures.Journal of Personal Selling Dabholkar, Pratibha, and Kellaris, James J.: Toward Understanding
and Sales Management11 (1991): 13–25. Marketing Students’ Ethical Judgment of Controversial Personal
Selling Practices.Journal of Business Research24 (1992): 313–329. Hunt, Shelby D., and Chonko, Lawrence B.: Ethical Problems of Advertising Agency Executives.Journal of Advertising16 (1987): Dawson, Leslie M.: Ethical Differences Between Men and Women in
16–24. the Sales Profession.Journal of Business Ethics16 (1997):1143–
1152. Hunt, Shelby D., Wood, Van R., and Chonko, Lawrence B.: Corporate
Ethical Values and Organizational Commitment in Marketing. DeConinck, James B.: How Sales Manages Control Unethical Sales
Kelley, Scott.W., Ferrell, O. C., and Skinner, Steven J.: Ethical Behav- Singahapakdi, Anusorn, and Vitell, Scott J.: Factors Influencing Per-ceptions of Ethical Problems and Alternatives.Journal of Macro-ior Among Marketing Researchers: An Assessment of Selected
Demographic CharacteristicsJournal of Business Ethics9 (1990): marketing12 (1990): 4–13.
681–688. Singahapakdi, Anusorn, and Vitell, Scott J.: Analyzing the Ethical
Decision Making of Sales Professionals.Journal of Personal Selling Kurland, Nancy B.: Sales Agents and Clients: Ethics, Incentives,
and Sales Management11 (1991a): 1–12. and a Modified Theory of Planned Behavior.Human Relations49
(1996): 51–74. Singahapakdi, Anusorn, and Vitell, Scott J.: Marketing Ethics: Sales
Professionals Versus Other Marketing Professionals. Journal of Loe, Terry W., Ferrell, Linda, and Mansfield, Phyliss: A Review of
Personal Selling and Sales Management12 (1992): 27–38. empirical Studies Assessing Ethical Decision Making in Business.
Journal of Business Ethics25 (2000): 185–204. Singahapakdi, Anusorn, and Vitell, Scott J.: Personal and Profession-alValues Underlying the Ethical Judgments of Marketers.Journal Loo, Robert: Utility and Construct Validity of an Unethical Dilemma
of Business Ethics12 (1993): 525–533. Scale in Management Education Journal of Business Ethics 15
(1996): 551–557. Singahapakdi, Anusorn, and Vitell, Scott J.: Research Note: Selected
Factors Influencing Marketers’ Deontological Norms. Journal of McDonald, Gael: Business Ethics: Practical Proposals for
Organiza-the Academy of Marketing Science19 (1991b): 37–42. tions.Journal of Business Ethics19 (2000):143–158.
Singhapakdi, Anusorn, Rao, C. P., and Vitell, Scott J.: Ethical Decision Maes, Jeanne D., Jeffrey, Arthur, and Smith, Tommy V.: The American
Making: An Investigation of Services Marketing Professionals. Association of Advertising Agencies (4As) Standards of Practice:
Journal of Business Ethics15 (1996a): 635–644. How Far Does This Professional Association’s Code of Ethics’
Singhapakdi, Anusorn, Vitell, Scott J., and Kraft, Kenneth L: Moral Influence Reach?Journal of Business Ethics17 (1998): 1155–1161.
Intensity and Ethical Decision-Making of Marketing Professionals. Marshall, Rex L., Armstrong, Robert W., and Smith, Malcolm: The
Journal of Business Research36 (1996b): 245–255. Ethical Environment of Tax Practitioners: Western Australian
Evi-Singhapakdi, Anusorn, Vitell, Scott J., Rao, C. P., and Kurtz, David L.: dence.Journal of Business Research17 (1998): 1265–1279.
Ethics Gap: Comparing Marketers with Consumers on Important Mascarenhas, Oswald A. J.: Exonerating Unethical Marketing
Execu-Determinants of Ethical Decision-Making.Journal of Business Ethics tive Behaviors: A Diagnostic Framework.Journal of Marketing59
21 (1999): 317–328. (1995): 43–57.
Sparks, John R., and Hunt, Shelby D.: Marketing Researchers’ Ethical Merritt, Sharyne: Marketing Ethics and Education: Some Empirical
Sensitivity: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Exploratory In-Findings.Journal of Business Ethics10 (1991): 625–632.
vestigation.Journal of MarketingApril (1998): 92–109. Morris, Michael H., Marks, Amy S., Allen, Jeffrey A., and Perry,
Strutton, David, Brooke, J. Hamilton III, and Lumpkin, James R.: Newman S. Jr.: Modeling Ethical Attitudes and Behaviors under
An Essay on When to Fully Disclose in Sales Relationships: Conditions of Environmental Turbulence: The Case of South
Applying Two Practical Guidelines for Addressing Truth-Telling Africa.Journal of Business Ethics15 (1996): 1119–1130. Problems.Journal of Business Ethics16(1997): 545–560. Murphy, Patrick E., and Laczniak, Gene R.: Marketing Ethics: A Thompson, Craig J.: A Contextualist Proposal for the
Conceptualiza-Review with Implications for Managers, Educators and Research- tion and Study of Marketing Ethics.Journal of Public Policy and ers, inReview of Marketing, Ben M. Enis and Kenneth J. Roehring, Marketing14 (1995): 177–191.
eds., American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL. 1981, pp.
Thumin, Fred J., Johnson, Julius H. Jr., Kuehl, Charles, and Jiang, 251–266.
William Y.: Corporate Values as Related to Occupation, Gender, Niebuhr, H. Richard: The Responsible Self. Harper and Row, New Age and Company Size The Journal of Psychology 129 (1995):
York. 1963. 389–400.
Pratt, Cornelius B.: Public Relations: The Empirical Research on Tsalikis, John, and Fritzche, David J.: Business Ethics: A Literature Practitioner Ethics.Journal of Business Ethics10 (1991): 229–236. Review with a Focus on Marketing Ethics. Journal of Business Reiss, Michelle C., and Mitra, Kaushik: The Effects of Individual Ethics8 (1989): 695–743.
Difference Factors on the Acceptability of Ethical and Unethical Vitell, Scott J., and Davis, Donald L.: The Relationship Between Ethics Workplace Behaviors.Journal of Business Ethics17 (1998): 1581– and Job Satisfaction: An Empirical Investigation.Journal of Business
1593. Ethics9 (1990a): 489–494.
Robin, Donald P., and Babin, Lauri. Making Sense of the Research in Vitell, Scott J., and Davis, Donald L.: Ethical Beliefs of MIS Profession-Gender and Ethics in Business: A Critical Analysis and Extension. als: The Frequency and Opportunity for Unethical Behavior.
Jour-Business Ethics QuarterlyOctober (1997): 61–90. nal of Business Ethics9 (1990b): 63–70.
Robin, Donald P., and Reidenbach, Eric: Social Responsibility, Ethics, Vitell, Scott J., Lumpkin, James R., and Rawwas, Mohammed Y. A.: and Marketing Strategy: Closing the Gap Between Concept and Consumer Ethics: An Investigation of the Ethical Beliefs of Elderly Application.Journal of Marketing51 (1987): 44–58. Consumers.Journal of Business Ethics10 (1991): 365–375. Schwepker, Charles H., Jr., and Ingram, Thomas N.: Improving Vitell, Scott J., and Muncy, James A.: Consumer Ethics: An Empirical
Sales Performance Through Ethics: The Relationship Between Investigation of Factors Influencing Ethical Judgments of the Final Salesperson Moral Judgment and Job Performance. Journal of Consumer.Journal of Business Ethics11 (1992): 585–597.
Business Ethics15 (1996): 1151–1160. Vitell, Scott, J., Nwachukwu, Saviour L., and Barnes, James H.: The
Shaub, Michael K. An Empirical Examination of the Determinants Effects of culture on Ethical Decision-Making: An Application of of Auditors’ Ethical Sensistivity. Doctoral Dissertation: Texas Tech Hofstede’s Typology. Journal of Business Ethics12 (1993): 753–
Volker, J. M.: Counseling, Experience, Moral Judgment, Awareness Winter, Gibson:Elements of Social Ethic.The MacMillan Company, of Consequences and Moral Sensitivity in Counseling Practice. New York. 1966.
Unpublished manuscript. Department of Psychology: University Wotruba, Thomas R., Chonko, Lawrence B., and Loe, Terry W.:
of Minnesota, 1984. The Impact of Code Familiarity on Manager Behavior.Journal of
Weeks, William A., and Nantel, Jacques: Corporate Codes of Ethics Business Ethics2000; forthcoming. and Sales Force Behavior: A Case Study.Journal of Business Ethics
