Abstract
In India, cigarette packets will now be 85% covered with a message that comprises of 65% photograph and a 20% message highlighting the harmful affects of smoking and the fact that it can lead to cancer.( Porecha & Kutty, 2014) The cancer connect due to smoking has been proven beyond any doubt. Although, discussed only as an issue in an ethical marketing class, the fact remains that, ‘smoking kills’. The fact that tobacco companies pay so much in taxes cannot rule out the harmful affects of smoking. Smoking kills and governments cannot absolve themselves of any moral obligation wherein they are happy to collect taxes that the cigarette companies pay and in return kill its own citizens, in due course of time. The argument that rules, law are stricter in developed countries also, does not give the cigarette manufacturers any conscious right to dump the same on third world countries. It is like saying that humans in the third world countries are ‘less’ human as compared to the developed countries. Socially responsible marketing demands that all stake holders i.e. the customers, employees, marketing partners and members of the financial community create both prosperity and balance amongst all. ( Kotler, Keller, Koshy and Jha, 2013).
Keywords: Ethical Marketing.
Use the model in Exhibit 1 as a guide and assess the ethical and social implications of the situations described.
The ethical and social dilemma is company survival versus human survival. Companies pay taxes, countries, especially third world countries need taxes. Companies and nations survive, but people do not, because of the harmful affects of cigarettes. Moreover, addiction amongst young smokers is promoted, parasitically ensuring continuing markets for cigarette companies. Paradoxically, at what cost? In sum total and with respect to all the factors in the decision points given in Exhibit-I, it is clear cigarettes should not exist. Ethically cigarettes do not have a legal, ethical and social right to endanger the lives of so many humans. The consideration of endangering humans from third world countries or getting children addicted to ensure sales is criminal. What is compromised is a life? That life is actually the country, the organization in the real sense. We cannot have a situation where companies or corporations think bottom line, profits, survival or expansion at the cost of even a single human life. Cigarette as a product has a long history. People have been smoking under different guises for a long time in different cultures. That however does not give any one pilot permission to sell eventual death under the guise of individual freedom as the Marlboro advertisement proclaims. The worst possible thing is drawing women in to the gamut of smokers with a message of ‘freedom’. If the women in the society succumb, soon the family also gets compromised. If the cigarette is to remain socially and ethically relevant, the cigarette companies and the government, as the major stake holders, should invest in finding out a non-corrupt and non-abusive alternative to smoking. Then, it can become relevant.
Can you recommend alternative strategies or solutions to dilemmas confronting the tobacco companies? To governments? What is the price of ethical behavior?
The strategy for cigarette companies is to understand that they have to be come socially and ethically relevant. They might target third world countries, children, and women etc. to keep on growing, but even this growth has a bottom line. It is characteristically non-symbiotic. The growth is non-holistic and companies benefits and citizens suffer. That is not correct and ideal. It will most definitely come to an end. As far as governments are concerned, who strategically close their eyes, when bans are considered on smoking and drinking, under the guise of personal freedom, enjoying the liquidity that these taxes bring in? They need to realize that it is blood money. They are elected people representatives holding accountability to the citizen and not the tax paying corporate. Hence the bitter pill would have to be swallowed and the production of cigarettes stopped. The best part is there is no dilemma; it is a simple fact with frightening implications. The factual part is also to look for other alternatives for tax collections rather than the cigarettes or if possible invest and make something that is a ‘healthy cigarette’.
Should the U.S. government support U.S.tobacco company interests abroad?
Again, ethically the U.S. tobacco company should get the protection that a law abiding, tax paying entity deserves from the U.S. government. Having said that, it is also the responsibility of the government and the tobacco manufacturer to not compromise the lives of the tobacco consumer, when eventual death or chances of disease are almost confirmed in a majority of cases. As major stake holders it is their responsibility to ensure a disease free product by investing in technology or looking for better alternatives.
Should a company be forced to stop marketing a product that is not legal such as cigarettes?
In the concept of Marketing 3.0, the customers are to be treated as human beings (Kotler, Kartajaya & Setiawan, 2010). The customer demands are to be met with more collaborative, cultural and spiritual marketing. Marketing cannot work on dump the product on the customer or create new customers without the spiritual element. This also means that the solution to health hazards like cigarettes can be solved using human ingenuity and creativity. To answer the question as to whether a company should be forced to stop production of cigarettes, the problem needs to be answered with respect to the legal, social, political and economic environments in the U.S., without compromising fundamental rights of the manufacturers as well. If the society awakens, understanding the high health hazards, reacts by creating statutes i.e. legally, is supported by politicians without selfish ulterior motives politically and the economic contribution by this sector is also taken care off by alternate means, yes, the production should be stopped. Ethically, we owe the same to our society because such a product would never have existed, but for the mute lack of reaction from the citizen’s side. Finally, dumping the same on third world countries does not make U.S. cigarette manufacturers, any less responsible or less accountable. In simple words, ethics in marketing refers to what is morally right and wrong. (Smith & Murphy, 2012)
References
Porecha M. & Kutty S. (2014). Tumors, ulcers to occupy more space on cigarette packs soon. Retrieved from http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-tumours-ulcers-to-occupy-most-space-on-cigarette-packs-soon-2026522
Kotler P., Keller K.L., Koshy A. & Jha M. (2013). Marketing Management: A South Asian Perspective. New Delhi. Pearson.
Kotler P., Kartajaya H. & Setiawan I. From Products to Customer to Human Spirit. Marketing 3.0. (2010). New Delhi. John Wiley, India.
Murphy P.E. & Smith N.C. Marketing Ethics: A review of the field. (2012). London.Sage.
