Ethics and Marketing Management: A Retrospective and Prospective Commentary

Lawrence B. Chonko
BAYLOR UNIVERSITY

Shelby D. Hunt
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY

The Authors thank the Journal of Business Research for awarding its Quality and Impact in Marketing Scholarship Award to our 1985 article, Ethics and Marketing Management. In this article, provide a retrospective that examines how subsequent research has extended our findings and provide a prospective that suggests directions for future research. J BUSN RES 2000. 50.235244. 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

o have ones work accepted for publication is gratifying; to have it cited and extended by other researchers is even more gratifying; to have it viewed as seminal and important by a major journal is an absolute delight. We thank the Journal of Business Research for selecting our article, Ethics and Marketing Management: An Empirical Examination (Chonko and Hunt, 1985; hereafter, EMM) to receive its Quality and Impact in Marketing Scholarship Award. We also thank JBR for the opportunity to provide this retrospective and prospective commentary on EMM. Needless to say, but we say it anyway, the award is a highlight in our research careers. The award also bodes well for stimulating future research on ethics. This commentary is not a review of marketing ethics since EMMs publication in 1985. Instead, given that an important 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 EMM and then provide a prospective look at topics for further research. At the outset, we note that EMM, based on a sample of 1076 marketing professionals drawn from the membership of the American Marketing Association, came to six major conclusions:

1. The most often mentioned ethical problem faced by marketers is bribery. Five other issues (fairness, honesty, pricing strategy, product strategy, and personnel decisions) were also frequently cited as difficult ethical problems. 2. The primary ethical conflict reported by marketing managers involved balancing demands of the corporation against customer needs. 3. Marketing managers perceive many opportunities in their firms and industries to engage in unethical behavior. However, they reported that few managers engaged in such behaviors. 4. Marketing managers do not believe that unethical behaviors in general lead to success. However, many believe that successful marketing managers do engage in certain specific unethical behaviors. 5. When top management reprimands unethical behavior, the ethical problems perceived by marketing managers seem to be reduced. 6. The existence of corporate or industry codes of ethics seems to be unrelated to the extent of unethical problems in marketing management. We begin our retrospective by examining how empirical research subsequent to our 1985 article addressed and extended each of these conclusions.

Ethical Problems of Marketing Practitioners

Concern about ethical issues in marketing has long been noted in marketing practice. Indeed, Baumhart (1961) examined 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, and call girls; (2) price discrimination and unfair pricing; (3) dishonest advertising; (4) cheating customers; and (5)
ISSN 0148-2963/00/$see front matter PII S0148-2963(00)00175-2

Address correspondence to Dr. Lawrence B. Chonko, Baylor University, Hankamer School of Business, Waco, TX 76798 USA. E-mail address: Larry_ Chonko@baylor.edu Journal of Business Research 50, 235244 (2000) 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010

236

J Busn Res 2000:50:235244

L. B. Chonko and S. D. Hunt

price collusion. Baumharts findings, subsequently replicated by Brenner and Molander (1977), prompted Murphy and Laczniak (1981) to famously conclude that the function within business firms most often charged with ethical abuse is marketing (p. 251). Given the concern about marketing ethics among business practitioners, it is no surprise, then, that marketing ethics research among academics has become increasingly viewed as important. Many, if not most, studies of marketing ethics take a normative approach. That is, researchers focus on developing guidelines and rules to determine the ethical choice in a decision situation and assist marketers in their efforts to behave in an ethical manner. Other studies, especially in the last two decades, are positive, rather than normative. That is, researchers develop theories and models that attempt to describe, explain, and predict such ethical phenomena as ethical judgments, intentions, behaviors, and issues. Much of the positive research uses scenarios to explore the reactions of subjects to situations that have been predetermined by the researchers to have ethical content. Instead of the predetermined, ethical/ unethical, scenario approach, EMM focused on determining the ethical issues that marketing practitioners themselves viewed to be important in their daily work experience. In EMM, we reported the ten most difficult ethical problems that our sample of 1,076 marketing professionals indicated that they experienced in their work. In descending order of frequency of mention, the problem categories were: (1) bribery, (2) fairness, (3) honesty, (4) pricing, (5) product, (6) personnel, (7) confidentiality, (8) advertising, (9) manipulation of data, and (10) purchasing. Four other issues, which were mentioned much less frequently by respondents, were abuse of office, compromising personal beliefs, conflicts of interest, and goal setting. It is important to note that these 14 problems were not necessarily the ones most often experienced by our respondents. Rather, these were the issues that respondents indicated were most difficult for them. Table 1 displays the 14 issues that we identified and the extent to which subsequent researchers (who cited EMM) extended our work on each of the problems. Table 1 also identifies the populations that subsequent researchers examined. Studying the table reveals several interesting patterns: First, every issue that EMM identified has been investigated further and found to be important by at least one subsequent piece of empirical research. Thus, the issues EMM identified were not idiosyncratic to our sample. Second, over 90% of subsequent works have addressed one or more of the first three most difficult issues. Therefore, the issues that were generally identified most frequently as very difficult for marketing practitioners have been the subject of a great deal of additional research. Third, unlike many research areas in marketing, the use of students as the populations studied has been relatively infrequent. Indeed, less than 15% of subsequent researchers have used students as their samples and most, over 60%, of

the studies were conducted with the participation of marketing practitioners. Fourth, as might be expected, most subsequent works (about 90%) have used samples drawn from the United States. However, an increasing number of studies have used samples from other countries, including Australia, Canada, Turkey, and South Africa. The trend toward non-U.S. samples is one that we wholeheartedly support. Fifth, examining the issues investigated by subsequent researchers reveals a wide variety of specific contexts in which the ethical problems occur. For example, with respect to the general category of fairness, researchers have examined passing blame (Akaah and Lund, 1994), authorizing rules violations (Akaah and Lund, 1994), using false information to create a customerproduct fit (Dawson, 1997), and treating advertising suppliers/other agencies fairly (Hunt and Chonko, 1987). Research on honesty, has included concealing ones errors (Akaah and Lund, 1994), the sale of an inferior product that yields a higher commission (Glover et al., 1997), manipulating sales contest rules (Dawson, 1997), and company integrity in dealing with customers (Bourne and Snead, 1995). With respect to product, researchers have examined parts specifications (Loo, 1996), quality control (Hite et al., 1988), and changing labels to increase consumption (Merritt, 1991). As a final example, numerous studies related to personnel have included works on the use of consulting psychologists to handle an employee problem (Dawson, 1997), favoritism in promotion (Ede et al., 2000), overworking salespeople (Burns et al., 1994), dating company employees/management (Burns et al., 1994), trying to get employees to quit (Burns et al., 1994), not maintaining technological competence (Marshall et al., 1998), use of coercive power (Harris and Sutton, ` inflation (Dabholkar and Kellaris, 1992), treat1995), resume ing employees with dignity (Bourne and Snead, 1995), and pay fairness (Bourne and Snead, 1995). The ethical issues identified by EMM, therefore, appear to have provided a major focus for subsequent research. Issues not identified by EMM, but receiving attention, include pollution, budget considerations, nonreporting of violations, and refusing to help customers (Akaah and Lund, 1994; Burns etal., 1994; Loo, 1996). Furthermore, the most frequently cited issues identified by EMM have been stressed more by subsequent researchers than those issues infrequently mentioned. In short, subsequent research has tended to focus on important ethical issues. Moreover, subsequent researchers have most often used marketing and business practitioners as samples and the samples have, increasingly, been drawn from outside the United States. Finally, subsequent research has examined the ethical issues identified in EMM in a wide variety of specific contexts.

Ethical Conflicts Faced by Marketers

Ethical conflict occurs when people perceive that their duties toward one group are inconsistent with their duties and re-

Ethics and Marketing Management

J Busn Res 2000:50:235244

237

Table 1. Ethical Issues Addressed Subsequent to EMM Study Abratt et al., 1992 Akaah, 1992 Akaah, 1996 Akaah and Lund, 1994 Armstrong, 1992 Bass and Hebert, 1995 Bass et al., 1998 Belizzi, 1995 Bellizzi and Hasty, 1998 Bellizzi and Hite, 1989 Borkowski and Ugras, 1992 Bourne and Snead, 1999 Boyle, 2000 Burns et al., 1994 Chan and Armstrong, 1999 Dabholkar and Kellaris, 1992 Dawson, 1997 DeConinck, 1992 DeConinck and Lewis, 1997 Dorsch et al., 1997 Dubinsky and Loken, 1989 Dubinsky et al., 1992 Ede et al. (2000) Ekin and Tezolmez, 1999 Finn et al., 1988 Fraedrich, 1993 Glover et al., 1997 Harris and Sutton, 1995 Hite et al., 1988 Hoffman et al., 1991 Hunt and Chonko, 1987 Kelley et al., 1990 Loo, 1996 Marshall et al., 1998 Merritt, 1991 Morris et al., 1996 Pratt, 1991 Reiss and Mitra, 1998 Schwepker and Ingram, 1996 Singhapakdi and Vitell, 1991a Singhapakdi and Vitell, 1992 Singhapakdi and Vitell, 1993 Singhapakdi et al., 1996a Singhapakdi et al., 1996b Singhapakdi et al., 1999 Thumin et al., 1995 Weeks and Nantel, 1992
a

1a X X X X X X

3 X X X

6 X X

7 X X X X X

10

11 X

12

13

14

Population South African/Australian Managers AMA Professionals AMA Professionals Marketing Managers Australian Exporters AMA Professionals AMA Professionals Sales Managers Sales Managers AMA Professionals Students Business Executives Salespeople Students Australian/Canadian Exporters Students Members of Professional Associations Sales Managers Sales Managers Purchasing Executives SME Members Salespeople Minority Business Owners Turkish Managers Accounting Professionals Retail Managers Students Students/Business Executives CEOs Sales Agents Ad Agency Executives Marketing Researchers Students Australian Tax Agents AMA Professionals South African Marketing Researchers Public Relations Practitioner Students Sales Executives Salespeople Services Marketing Professionals AMA Professionals AMA Professionals AMA Professionals AMA Professionals Advertising Professionals Salespeople

X X

X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X

X X

X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X

Ethical 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, 339359 were: (1) bribery, (2) fairness, (3) honesty, (4) price, (5) product, (6) personnel, (7) confidentiality, (8) advertising, (9) manipulation of data, (10) purchasing, (11) abuse of office, (12) compromising personal beliefs, (13) conflicts of interest, and (14) goal setting.

238

J Busn Res 2000:50:235244

L. B. Chonko and S. D. Hunt

sponsibilities toward some other group (including ones own self). Ethical conflict prompts attempts to resolve opposing obligations. The marketing managers in our study reported 12 different conflicts. However, four major conflicts accounted for almost 70% of responses. These were, in descending order of frequency, balancing corporate interest versus the interests of the (1) customer, (2) self, (3) society, and (4) subordinates. Since EMM, few researchers have explicitly addressed the nature and frequency of conflicts. However, many works have done so implicitly. For example, Glover et al. (1997) examined the conflict experienced by investment bankers who had friends employed in a firm about to be purchased by a company having little management expertise. Others have addressed external stakeholder issues (Bourne and Snead, 1995), the role of significant others influence on ethical decision making (Chonko et al., 1996 ), self interests versus the interests of the company (Glover et al, 1997), managing customer relationships (Kurland, 1996), relationships with significant others (Hoffman et al., 1991), managing work relationships (Bourne and Snead, 1995), and the influence of peers (Akaah, 1992; Crown and Spiller, 1998). Furthermore, Singhapakdi et al. (1996a) examined ethical scenarios involving product defects (company versus customer), value exaggerations (company versus customer, personal versus customer), higher prices in the ghetto (customer versus company), and the misrepresentation of information (company versus customer), and Hite et al. (1988) addressed conflicts of interest in their examination of policy statements. Most ethics research employing scenarios implicitly focuses on conflicts of interest. Individual decision makers can be viewed as actors in a web of relationships (Niebuhr, 1963). Individuals tend to fit actions in response to others who are involved in this web, which Fritzche (1991) describes as the individuals role set. Chonko et al. (1996) call for scenario work concerning conflicts of interest in which stakeholders and relevant sales and marketing information are manipulated sequentially to understand how changes in stakeholders impacts ethical decision-making.

many opportunities for unethical behavior, but they also believe that few colleagues engage in unethical behavior (e.g., Marshall et al., 1998; Armstrong, 1992; Vitell and Davis, 1990b; Finn et al., 1988). It is gratifying to see that so many studies have employed the scales we created to assess opportunity for unethical behavior. However, further work is needed. EMM may, in fact, be viewed as a norm score against which specific findings of other studies could be compared. Indeed, as ethical climates change, it would be interesting to track how various populations change their views on opportunities for unethical behavior.

Unethical Behavior and Success

EMM reported that marketing managers do not believe that unethical behaviors in general lead to success. Only 8% agreed that Successful marketing managers in my COMPANY are generally more unethical than unsuccessful managers. Likewise, only 26% agreed that In order to succeed in my company, it is often necessary to compromise ones ethics. However, many believe that successful marketing managers do engage in certain specific unethical behaviors. Significant numbers of managers believe that successful managers in their company (1) withhold information that is detrimental to their self interests (43%); (2) make rivals look bad in the eyes of important people in their company (29%); (3) look for a scapegoat when they feel they may be associated with failure (32%); and (4) take credit for the ideas and accomplishments of others (48%). The findings of EMM on ethics and success items have been replicated in subsequent research. Marshall et al. (1998) report that unethical behavior was not needed for success. They also report that managers felt little need to compromise ethics to be successful. These findings parallel those reported by Vitell and Davis (1990b) and Armstrong (1992). Like the assessment of ethical opportunities, the studies reported above use EMMs success scales. We called for further research on success and its relationship to ethical/unethical behavior. While some studies have examined this relationship, there is clearly much more work to be done. As with opportunities for unethical behavior, it would be interesting to track the changes in perceptions of ethical/unethical behavior and success over time. Further, it would also be interesting to examine how these perceptions relate to such organizational outcomes as growth and profitability.

Opportunities for Unethical Behavior

EMM reported that marketing managers perceive many opportunities in their firms and industries to engage in unethical behavior. Specifically, 41% agreed that There are many opportunities for marketing managers in my COMPANY to engage 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 that managers in their firms engaged in unethical behaviors, while 25% agreed that managers in their industries engaged in such behaviors. The ethical opportunities questions developed in our study have been used in subsequent research. In general, researchers have also reported that respondents view

The Impact of Top Management Actions

When top management reprimands unethical behavior, the ethical problems perceived by marketing managers seem to be reduced. Indeed, top management actions was the single

Ethics and Marketing Management

J Busn Res 2000:50:235244

239

best predictor of the extent to which managers perceive ethical problems. This finding has been corroborated many times (e.g. Vitell and Davis, 1990a, 1990b; Armstrong, 1992). These studies employed the top management scales we developed in EMM. Other researchers have extended EMM on the subject of the impact of top management actions on ethical behavior. For example, Vitell and Davis (1990b) find that when top management actions support ethical behavior, professionals are more satisfied with promotion opportunities, coworkers, supervisors, pay, and the job itself. Belizzi and Hite (1989) find that the kinds of actions managers take differ depending on circumstances. For example, when an unethical behavior occurred, termination was high on the list of remedies if the violators were poor performers, but such drastic action was not taken if the violators were good performers. Bellizi and Hite (1989) also report that gender made a difference in how management reacted to ethical violations: women generally were treated somewhat less harshly. Subsequently, Bellizzi (1995) corroborated this finding, again reporting that females are treated less harshly than males in ethical situations. More recently, McDonald (2000) has observed that a commitment by senior management to ethics becoming a part of the strategic vision of a company is essential for promoting ethical behavior. Extensions of EMM have dealt with managerial actions that would not necessarily be categorized as stemming from top management (e.g. Bellizzi and Hite, 1989). For example, Wotruba et al. (2000) report that ethics code familiarity is positively related to ethical judgments and decision-making. Implied in such research is communicating top management values as set forth in ethical codes. If, indeed, top management sets the tone for the ethical climate of an organization, research examining the interaction of code familiarity and the activities of lower level managers seems to offer great promise in extending the findings of EMM on the importance of top management.

of an ethical code is no guarantee of its impact on individual decision making. McDonald (2000) calls for codes to be written in simple terms. He further advances the view that codes must specify the commitment of the organization to its employees, not just the employees responsibilities regarding ethical performance. Strutton et al. (1997) examine the impact ` -vis customer expectations as well as of codes of ethics vis-a instilling proper behaviors through training. They, too, note that codes, by themselves, are not effective in influencing behavior. By contrast, Loe et al. (2000) report that codes do influence ethical behavior, perhaps by raising the level of awareness of ethical issues. Recently, Wotruba et al. (2000) find that the usefulness of ethics codes by managers as a tool for guiding behavior and decisions is strengthened as managers become more familiar with the specific contents and intentions of codes. Clearly, there is a role for codes of ethics in organizations. If marketing professionals are not provided with some ethical guidance, intraorganizational variations in ethical decision making can be expected to be large. The lack of a corporate code of ethics leaves ethical decision making entirely to individuals who, collectively, are unlikely to have uniformity of ethical values. Future research designs could usefully include not just codes, but also such factors as employees participation in code development, training in code use, and information assisting employees in resolving ethical dilemmas presented by differences in code provisions. Indeed, such designs offer excellent opportunities for future research.

Other Impacts of EMM

EMM seems to have influenced other aspects of ethics research. Here we examine situational factors, research method, respondent profiles, and ethical decision processes.

Situational Factors
There is a growing body of evidence that ethical decisionmaking is affected by situational factors. EMM examined four situational factors: title, gender, size of firm, and education. EMM reported that those higher in an organization are less likely to see ethical problems than their counterparts at lower organizational levels. Although not specifically addressing the issue of perceptions of ethical problems, parallel studies also find that rank has no impact on ethical behavior in several projects (e.g., Akaah, 1996; Ede et al., 2000; Kelley et al., 1990). Likewise, research on years of experience shows mixed effects on ethical behavior (Glover et al., 1997; Kelley et al., 1990). Years of experience was positively related to ethical discomfort, as reported by Dorsch et al. (1997), but not related to ethical behavior in a study by Fraedrich (1993). Years of experience has been found to be correlated with confidence in ethical decision making in two of four scenarios examined by the researchers (Glover et al., 1997). In their
TITLE.

The Impact of Corporate/ Industry Codes of Ethics

EMM reported that the mere existence of an industry or corporate code of ethics made little contribution to explaining the extent of ethical problems in marketing management. This finding has since been (generally) corroborated by others. For example, Marshall et al. (1998) report mixed results concerning the impact of codes on ethical behavior. Morris et al. (1996) find that codes are ineffective and that belief in code effectiveness declines as standards decline. Ekin and Tezolmez (1999) find that personal codes were far more influential on behavior than company codes. Weeks and Nantel (1992) also find codes to be ineffective but add that well communicated codes do help improve ethical behavior. Maes et al. (1998) note that codes represent an attempt to initiate thinking about unethical behavior, but that awareness

240

J Busn Res 2000:50:235244

L. B. Chonko and S. D. Hunt

review of ethics, Loe et al. (2000) conclude that years of experience was insignificant in their relationship to ethical decision making, while Ford and Richardson (1994) report mixed results. Our finding that males reported fewer ethical problems than females has served as a catalyst for a number of subsequent investigations of gender and ethics. EMMs findings have been corroborated by Loe et al. (2000) and Ford and Richardson (1994). Though several studies find that females tend to exhibit more ethical tendencies (e.g. Glover et al., 1997; Dawson, 1997; Singhapakdi et al., 1996a; Harris and Sutton, 1995; Ekin and Tezolmez, 1999), others report mixed or nonsignificant results concerning gender (e.g. Loo, 1996; Fraedrich, 1993; Bass and Hebert, 1995; Singhapakdi and Vitell, 1991b). Sparks and Hunt (1998) find no differences between males and females in ethical sensitivity. Finally, Robin and Babin (1997) report no gender differences regarding behavioral intentions on six ethical decision scenarios. They further report that, in an examination of fourteen studies using 128 scenarios, only 27 of these scenarios produced gender differences, which leads them to the conclusion that gender differences may not be as pronounced as once thought. We concur.
GENDER. SIZE OF FIRM.

allowed readers to gain a better picture of respondents and help readers formulate their own thoughts on study findings and limitations. Many authors have used the format we presented in our study of marketing managers.

Ethical Decision Processes

EMM called for further study of ethical decision processes. We also called for research that examines the trade-offs made by mangers dealing with ethical decision-making situations. DeConinck and Lewis (1997) examine the impact of deontological philosophy on ethical decision-making. They report that, when consequences of actions are positive, fewer managers are likely to see decisions as unethical than if consequences of actions are negative. When the action clearly was unethical, and the consequences were negative, managers prefer more severe punishments. When actions were ethical and consequences positive, managers tend to offer more rewards. In another study involving deontological and teleological considerations, Harris ands Sutton (1995) observe that deontologically oriented individuals are less tolerant of unethical behavior than teleologically oriented individuals. Castleberry et al. (1993), like Goolsby and Hunt (1992), find that marketing researchers are similar to other groups in their moral reasoning levels. Boyle (2000) reports that managers who score high on relativism are more likely to judge the actions of salespeople as ethical than managers scoring low on relativism. Boyle also finds that low relativist males view actions of salespeople as more ethical than low relativist female managers. Singhapakdi and Vitell (1990) report that high moral intensity is correlated with higher ethical perceptions. Schwepker and Ingram (1996) find in their study of moral judgment that higher moral judgment is related to higher salesperson performance. Singhapakdi and Vitell (1993) examine the impact of personal and professional values on ethical decision making and find only the former to have an influence. Bass et al. (1998) report that ethical judgments of sales managers vary by personal moral philosophy, but ethical intentions do not.

EMM also reported that respondents in larger firms were more likely to see ethical problems than those in smaller firms. However, this variable has received little attention in subsequent research.

EDUCATION.

Finally, EMM reported that respondents with technical educational backgrounds were less likely to see ethical problems than respondents with business, social science, humanities, or other nontechnical education. However, this finding has generally not been supported in subsequent studies (e.g. Reiss and Mitra, 1998; Fraedrich, 1993; Merritt, 1991; Kelley et al., 1990). Ford and Richardson report mixed results in their examination of education (both type and length) and ethics, while Loe et al. (2000) report that the relationship between education and ethics was nonsignificant.

Research Method
A number of researchers have employed all or parts of the research method used in our study of marketing managers. Chan and Armstrong (1999) examine major ethical problems and their frequency and importance in their study of Canadian and Australian exporters. As noted earlier, several researchers (e.g., Armstrong, 1992; Vitell and Davis, 1990a, 1990b; Marshall et al., 1998) have employed our scales for opportunities, success, behavior, and top management actions in their efforts. Hoffman et al. (1991) employ the nominal group technique to identify key ethical issues in their study of insurance professionals.

A Prospective Look
Where does marketing ethics research go from here? Although our list of suggested topics is by no means exhaustive, we can provide some tentative directions to consideration. First, consider the question: What factors influence the recognition of ethical problems? This question is addressed by Sparks and Hunt (1998), who observe that ethical sensitivity has two major conceptualizations: (1) the ability to recognize that a decision making situation has ethical content (1989); and (2) the view of Volker (1984) that both the recognition of ethical content and the importance of the ethical issue comprise ethical sensitivity. Sparks and Hunt (1998) find that the two definitions of ethical sensitivity are empirically equivalent. Furthermore, they point out that (1) ethical sensi-

Respondent Profiles
How should respondent profile data be presented in a study? EMM presented a complete profile of respondents, which

Ethics and Marketing Management

J Busn Res 2000:50:235244

241

tivity does not imply ethicality, (2) individuals unaware of the ethical content of a decision might behave differently if the ethical nature of the decision was made known to them, and (3) ethical sensitivity is context specific, i.e., organizations, professions, and industries develop norms of ethical behavior that are not necessarily transferable from one profession to the next. Moreover, their results show that the ethical sensitivity of marketing researchers is a positive function of organizational socialization and perspective taking, but a negative function of relativism and formal training in ethics. However, much more research on ethical sensitivity is needed. For example, the relationship between ethical sensitivity and such factors as ethical judgments, deontological norms, and ethical behaviors would be useful. Second, Dunfee, Smith, and Ross (1999) advocate the social contract perspective on marketing ethics. Their integrated social contracts theory stresses the importance of multiple community norms, screening community norms for legitimacy under the hypernorm test, and screening the legitimate norms for dominance under priority rules. Ethical judgments, then, are argued to be based on dominant, legitimate norms. We agree that their approach is insightful and that it offers the opportunity for significant empirical research. For example, identifying relevant marketing communities and the norms of these communities would seem to be important. Dunfee, Smith, and Ross (1999) suggest that further research identifying hypernorms that would transcend marketing communities would also be important. They identify, as a starting point, hypernorms associated with dignity, promises, deception, property rights, and bribery (p. 30). We concur that this is a useful starting point. Third, the conflicts faced by marketers are many and complex and EMM identifies the major types of conflicts that marketers face. However, though the simple enumeration of pair-wise conflicts serves as a starting point, there is much to learn concerning how marketers go about making decisions 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 processes with different values for the factors considered? Fourth, some research has been undertaken to assess the relationship of ethical decision-making to ethical opportunities and success. However, EMM found that most marketers will report that they have a higher level of ethics than do their peers and will also report that they engage in less questionable activity than their peers. Obviously, everyone cannot be more ethical than everyone else. Further work is needed to gain understanding of what leads marketers to believe they are more ethical than their peers and colleagues. Is this just cynicism? If so, why is cynicism so prevalent? Fifth, the evidence seems clear that top management is in a position to have a positive impact on ethical climate and ethical behaviors in organizations. An excellent research question concerns the extent to which ethics considerations are

interwoven into strategic planning (Thompson, 1995). Fruitful areas of research include the wisdom of including ethics in corporate vision statements, the nature of top management actions that inspire ethical behavior, and the interaction of codes of conduct and top management actions and their impact on the climate of the organization. As Robin and Reidenbach (1987) observe, Seldom are the moral or ethical dimensions of exchange strategy integrated into the [strategic marketing] process (p. 47). Further research might focus on the actions of managers when they are faced with differential consequences, individual differences of employees, and differing performance levels of employees. Does treating people differently for the same behaviors undermine the impact that codes and top management actions can have on the ethics of the organization? Sixth, codes of ethics, by themselves, are ineffective in reducing unethical behavior. However, it appears that the existence of codes, when combined with other organizational activities, can have an impact on the ethics of an organization. In particular, several researchers have suggested factors that would appear to be interesting when juxtaposed to codes of ethics and top management actions. These issues include personal and professional values (Akaah and Lund, 1994), locus of control (Reiss and Mitra (1998), achievement orientation (Glover et al., 1997), environmental turbulence (Morris et al., 1996), idealism and relativism (Singhapakdi et al., 1999), and Machiavellianism (Singhapakdi and Vitell, 1990). Further research on these factors appears warranted. In conclusion, since the publication of Ethics and Marketing Management by the Journal of Business Research in 1985, much progress has been made on the subject of ethics in marketing. Nonetheless, much remains to be done to understand the nature of marketing ethics and to assist managers in their efforts to improve marketing ethics performance. We hope that this commentary has provided at least some guidance on important questions and issues to pursue.

References
Abratt, Russell, Nel, Deon, and Higgs, Nicola Susan: An Examination of the Ethical Beliefs of Managers Using Selcted Scenarios in a Cross-Cultural Environment. Journal of Business Ethics 11 (1992): 2935. Akaah, Ishmael: Social Inclusion as a Marketing Ethics Correlate. Journal of Business Ethics. 11 (1992): 599608. Akaah, Ishmael: The Influence of Organizational Rank and Role on Marketing Professionals Ethical Judgments. Journal of Business Ethics 15 (1996): 605613. Akaah, Ishmael P., and Lund, Daulatram: The Influence of Personal and Organizational Values on Marketing Professionals Ethical Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics 13 (1994): 417430. Armstrong, Robert W.: An Empirical Investigation of International Marketing Ethics: Problems Encountered by Australian Firms. Journal of Business Ethics 11(1992): 161171.

242

J Busn Res 2000:50:235244

L. B. Chonko and S. D. Hunt

Bass, Ken, Barnett, Tim, and Brown, Gene: The Moral Philosophy of Sales Managers and Its Influence on Ethical Decision Making. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 18 (1998): 117. Bass, Kenneth E., and Hebert, Frederic J.: Individual and Situational Factors that Influence Managers Ethical Judgments. Psychological Reports 77 (1995): 727733. Baumhart, R. C.: How Ethical Are Businessmen? Harvard Business Review 39 (1961): 69, 156157. Bellizzi, Joseph A.: Committing and Supervising Unethical Sales Force Behavior: The Effects of Victim Gender, Victim Status, and Sales Force Motivational Techniques. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 15 (1995): 115. Belizzi, Joseph A., and Hasty, Ronald W.: Territory Assignment Decisions and Supervising Unethical Selling Behavior: The Effects of Obesity and Gender Moderated by Job-Related Factors. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 18 (1998): 3549. Belizzi, Joseph A., and Hite, Robert E.: Supervising Unethical Sales Force Behavior. Journal of Marketing 53 (1989): 3647. Borkowski, Susan C., and Ugras, Yusus J.: The Ethical Attitudes of Students as a Function of Age, Sex, and Experience. Journal of Business Ethics 11 (1992): 961979. Bourne, Steve, and Snead, John D.: Environmental Determinants of Organizational Ethical Climate: A Community Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 21 (1999): 283290. Boyle, Brett A.: The Impact of Customer Characteristics and Moral Philosophies on Ethical Judgments of Salespeople. Journal of Business Ethics 23 (2000): 249267. Brenner, S. N., and Molander. E. A.: Is the Ethics of Business Changing? Harvard Business Review 55 (1977): 5771. Burns, David J., Fawcett, Jeffrey K, and Lanasa, John: Business Students Ethical Perceptions of Retail Situations: A Microcultural Comparison. Journal of Business Ethics 13 (1994): 667679. Castleberry, Stephen B., French, Warren, and Carlin, Barbara A.: The Ethical Framework of Advertising and Marketing Research Practitioners: A Moral Development Perspective. Journal of Advertising 22 (1993): 3946. Chan, T.S., and Armstrong, Robert W.: Comparative Ethical Report Card: AA Study of Australian and Canadian Managers Perceptions of International Marketing Ethics Problems. Journal of Business Ethics 18 (1999): 315. Chonko, Lawrence B., and Hunt, Shelby D: Ethics and Marketing Management: An Empirical Examination. Journal of Business Research 13 (1985): 339359. Chonko, Lawrence B., Tanner, John F. Jr., and Weeks, William A.: Ethics in Salesperson Decision Making: A synthesis of Research Approaches and an Extension of the Scenario Method. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 16 (1996): 3552. Crown, Deborah F., and Spiller, M. Shane: Learning from the Literature on Collegiate Cheating: A Review of empirical Research. Journal of Business Ethics 17 (1989): 683700. Dabholkar, Pratibha, and Kellaris, James J.: Toward Understanding Marketing Students Ethical Judgment of Controversial Personal Selling Practices. Journal of Business Research 24 (1992): 313329. Dawson, Leslie M.: Ethical Differences Between Men and Women in the Sales Profession. Journal of Business Ethics 16 (1997):1143 1152. DeConinck, James B.: How Sales Manages Control Unethical Sales Force Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics 11 (1992): 789798.

DeConinck, James B., and Lewis, William F.: The Influence of Deontological and Teleological Considerations and Ethical Climate on Sales Managers Intentions to Reward or Punish Sales Force Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics 16 (1997): 497506. Dorsch, Michael J., Grove, Stephen J., Pickett, Gregory M, and Kelley, Scott W.: Responses to Gift Giving in a Business Context: An Empirical Examination. Psychological Reports 81 (1997): 947955. Dubinsky, Alan J., Jolson, Marvin A., Michaels, Ronald E., Kotabe, Masaaki, and Lim chae, Un: Ethical Perceptions of Field Sales Personnel: An Empirical Assessment. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 12 (1992): 921. Dubinsky, Alan J., and Loken, Barbara: Analyzing Ethical Decision Making in Marketing. Journal of Business Research 19 (1989): 83107. Dunfee, Thomas W., Smith, N. Craig, and Ross, William T. Jr.: Social Contracts and Marketing Ethics. Journal of Marketing 63 (3) (1999): 1432. Ede, Fred O., Panigrahi, Bhabagan, Stuart, Jon, and Calcich, Stephen: Ethics in Small Minority Businesses. Journal of Business Ethics 2000; 26:133146. Ekin, M. G. Serap, and Tezolmez, S. Hande: Business Ethics in Turkey: An Empirical Investigation with Special Emphasis on Gender. Journal of Business Ethics18 (1999): 1734. Finn, Don W., Chonko, Lawrence B., and Hunt, Shelby D.: Ethical Problems in Public Accounting: A View from the Top. Journal of Business Ethics 7 (1988): 605615. Ford, Robert C., and Richardson, Woodrow D.: Ethical Decision Making: A Review of the Empirical Literature. Journal of Business Ethics 13 (1994): 205221. Fraedrich, Jon Paul: The Ethical Behavior of Retail Managers. Journal of Business Ethics 12 (1993): 207218. Fritzche, David J.: A Model of Decision-Making Incorporating Ethical Values. Journal of Business Ethics 10 (1991): 841852. Glover, Saundra, H.,. Bumpus, Minnette A., Logan, John E., and Ciesla, James R.: Re-examining the Influence of Individual Values on Ethical decision Making. Journal of Business Research 16 (1997):13191329. Goolsby, Jerry R., and Hunt, Shelby D.: Cognitive Moral Development and Marketing. Journal of Marketing 56 (1992): 5568. Harris, James R., and Sutton, Charlotte D.: Unravelling the Ethical Decision-Making Process: Clues from an Empirical Study Comparing Fortune 1000 Executives and MBA Students. Journal of Business Ethics 14 (1995): 805817. Hite, Robert E., Bellizzi, Joseph A., and Frazer, Cynthia: A Content Analysis of Ethical Policy Statements Regarding Marketing Activities. Journal of Business Ethics 7 (1988): 771776. Hoffman, K. Douglas, Howe, Vince, and Hardigree, Donald W.: Ethical Dilemmas Faced in the Selling of Complex Services: Significant Others and Competitive Pressures. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 11 (1991): 1325. Hunt, Shelby D., and Chonko, Lawrence B.: Ethical Problems of Advertising Agency Executives. Journal of Advertising 16 (1987): 1624. Hunt, Shelby D., Wood, Van R., and Chonko, Lawrence B.: Corporate Ethical Values and Organizational Commitment in Marketing. Journal of Marketing 53 (1989): 7990.

Ethics and Marketing Management

J Busn Res 2000:50:235244

243

Kelley, Scott.W., Ferrell, O. C., and Skinner, Steven J.: Ethical Behavior Among Marketing Researchers: An Assessment of Selected Demographic Characteristics Journal of Business Ethics 9 (1990): 681688. Kurland, Nancy B.: Sales Agents and Clients: Ethics, Incentives, and a Modified Theory of Planned Behavior. Human Relations 49 (1996): 5174. Loe, Terry W., Ferrell, Linda, and Mansfield, Phyliss: A Review of empirical Studies Assessing Ethical Decision Making in Business. Journal of Business Ethics 25 (2000): 185204. Loo, Robert: Utility and Construct Validity of an Unethical Dilemma Scale in Management Education Journal of Business Ethics 15 (1996): 551557. McDonald, Gael: Business Ethics: Practical Proposals for Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics 19 (2000):143158. Maes, Jeanne D., Jeffrey, Arthur, and Smith, Tommy V.: The American Association of Advertising Agencies (4As) Standards of Practice: How Far Does This Professional Associations Code of Ethics Influence Reach? Journal of Business Ethics 17 (1998): 11551161. Marshall, Rex L., Armstrong, Robert W., and Smith, Malcolm: The Ethical Environment of Tax Practitioners: Western Australian Evidence. Journal of Business Research 17 (1998): 12651279. Mascarenhas, Oswald A. J.: Exonerating Unethical Marketing Executive Behaviors: A Diagnostic Framework. Journal of Marketing 59 (1995): 4357. Merritt, Sharyne: Marketing Ethics and Education: Some Empirical Findings. Journal of Business Ethics 10 (1991): 625632. Morris, Michael H., Marks, Amy S., Allen, Jeffrey A., and Perry, Newman S. Jr.: Modeling Ethical Attitudes and Behaviors under Conditions of Environmental Turbulence: The Case of South Africa. Journal of Business Ethics 15 (1996): 11191130. Murphy, Patrick E., and Laczniak, Gene R.: Marketing Ethics: A Review with Implications for Managers, Educators and Researchers, in Review of Marketing, Ben M. Enis and Kenneth J. Roehring, eds., American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL. 1981, pp. 251266. Niebuhr, H. Richard: The Responsible Self. Harper and Row, New York. 1963. Pratt, Cornelius B.: Public Relations: The Empirical Research on Practitioner Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 10 (1991): 229236. Reiss, Michelle C., and Mitra, Kaushik: The Effects of Individual Difference Factors on the Acceptability of Ethical and Unethical Workplace Behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics 17 (1998): 1581 1593. Robin, Donald P., and Babin, Lauri. Making Sense of the Research in Gender and Ethics in Business: A Critical Analysis and Extension. Business Ethics Quarterly October (1997): 6190. Robin, Donald P., and Reidenbach, Eric: Social Responsibility, Ethics, and Marketing Strategy: Closing the Gap Between Concept and Application. Journal of Marketing 51 (1987): 4458. Schwepker, Charles H., Jr., and Ingram, Thomas N.: Improving Sales Performance Through Ethics: The Relationship Between Salesperson Moral Judgment and Job Performance. Journal of Business Ethics 15 (1996): 11511160. Shaub, Michael K. An Empirical Examination of the Determinants of Auditors Ethical Sensistivity. Doctoral Dissertation: Texas Tech University, 1989.

Singahapakdi, Anusorn, and Vitell, Scott J.: Factors Influencing Perceptions of Ethical Problems and Alternatives. Journal of Macromarketing 12 (1990): 413. Singahapakdi, Anusorn, and Vitell, Scott J.: Analyzing the Ethical Decision Making of Sales Professionals. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 11 (1991a): 112. Singahapakdi, Anusorn, and Vitell, Scott J.: Marketing Ethics: Sales Professionals Versus Other Marketing Professionals. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 12 (1992): 2738. Singahapakdi, Anusorn, and Vitell, Scott J.: Personal and ProfessionalValues Underlying the Ethical Judgments of Marketers. Journal of Business Ethics 12 (1993): 525533. Singahapakdi, Anusorn, and Vitell, Scott J.: Research Note: Selected Factors Influencing Marketers Deontological Norms. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 19 (1991b): 3742. Singhapakdi, Anusorn, Rao, C. P., and Vitell, Scott J.: Ethical Decision Making: An Investigation of Services Marketing Professionals. Journal of Business Ethics 15 (1996a): 635644. Singhapakdi, Anusorn, Vitell, Scott J., and Kraft, Kenneth L: Moral Intensity and Ethical Decision-Making of Marketing Professionals. Journal of Business Research 36 (1996b): 245255. Singhapakdi, Anusorn, Vitell, Scott J., Rao, C. P., and Kurtz, David L.: Ethics Gap: Comparing Marketers with Consumers on Important Determinants of Ethical Decision-Making. Journal of Business Ethics 21 (1999): 317328. Sparks, John R., and Hunt, Shelby D.: Marketing Researchers Ethical Sensitivity: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Exploratory Investigation. Journal of Marketing April (1998): 92109. Strutton, David, Brooke, J. Hamilton III, and Lumpkin, James R.: An Essay on When to Fully Disclose in Sales Relationships: Applying Two Practical Guidelines for Addressing Truth-Telling Problems. Journal of Business Ethics 16(1997): 545560. Thompson, Craig J.: A Contextualist Proposal for the Conceptualization and Study of Marketing Ethics. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 14 (1995): 177191. Thumin, Fred J., Johnson, Julius H. Jr., Kuehl, Charles, and Jiang, William Y.: Corporate Values as Related to Occupation, Gender, Age and Company Size The Journal of Psychology 129 (1995): 389400. Tsalikis, John, and Fritzche, David J.: Business Ethics: A Literature Review with a Focus on Marketing Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 8 (1989): 695743. Vitell, Scott J., and Davis, Donald L.: The Relationship Between Ethics and Job Satisfaction: An Empirical Investigation. Journal of Business Ethics 9 (1990a): 489494. Vitell, Scott J., and Davis, Donald L.: Ethical Beliefs of MIS Professionals: The Frequency and Opportunity for Unethical Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics 9 (1990b): 6370. Vitell, Scott J., Lumpkin, James R., and Rawwas, Mohammed Y. A.: Consumer Ethics: An Investigation of the Ethical Beliefs of Elderly Consumers. Journal of Business Ethics 10 (1991): 365375. Vitell, Scott J., and Muncy, James A.: Consumer Ethics: An Empirical Investigation of Factors Influencing Ethical Judgments of the Final Consumer. Journal of Business Ethics 11 (1992): 585597. Vitell, Scott, J., Nwachukwu, Saviour L., and Barnes, James H.: The Effects of culture on Ethical Decision-Making: An Application of Hofstedes Typology. Journal of Business Ethics 12 (1993): 753 760.

244

J Busn Res 2000:50:235244

L. B. Chonko and S. D. Hunt

Volker, J. M.: Counseling, Experience, Moral Judgment, Awareness of Consequences and Moral Sensitivity in Counseling Practice. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Psychology: University of Minnesota, 1984. Weeks, William A., and Nantel, Jacques: Corporate Codes of Ethics and Sales Force Behavior: A Case Study. Journal of Business Ethics 11 (1992): 753760.

Winter, Gibson: Elements of Social Ethic. The MacMillan Company, New York. 1966. Wotruba, Thomas R., Chonko, Lawrence B., and Loe, Terry W.: The Impact of Code Familiarity on Manager Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics 2000; forthcoming.