Descarga la aplicación para disfrutar aún más
Vista previa del material en texto
Well-being Marketing: An Ethical Business Philosophy for Consumer Goods Firms M. Joseph Sirgy Dong-Jin Lee ABSTRACT. In this article we build on the program of research in well-being marketing by further conceptual- izing and refining the conceptual domain of the concept of consumer well-being (CWB). We then argue that well- being marketing is a business philosophy grounded in business ethics. We show how this philosophy is an ethical extension of relationship marketing (stakeholder theory in business ethics) and is superior to transactional marketing (a business philosophy grounded in the principles of consumer sovereignty). Additionally, we argue that well- being marketing is based on duty ethics concepts, specif- ically the duty of beneficence and non-maleficence. Subsequently, we show how the well-being concept guides marketing decisions for consumer goods firms. KEY WORDS: well-being marketing, marketing and quality of life, societal marketing, marketing ethics, social responsibility in marketing Introduction Much of the literature in corporate social responsi- bility has focused on six aspects of citizenship behavior: (1) corporate cause promotions, (2) cause- related marketing, (3) corporate social marketing, (4) corporate social philanthropy, (5) community vol- unteering, and (6) socially responsible business practices (Kotler and Lee, 2005). Corporate cause promotions involve corporate activities to increase awareness and concern for social causes (e.g., The Body Shop promoting a ban on the use of animals to test cosmetics). Cause-related marketing involves corporate efforts designed to induce consumers to make contributions to causes based on product sales (e.g., Comcast donates $4.95 of installation fees for its high-speed Internet service to Ronald McDonald House Charities). Corporate social marketing involves corporate campaigns that support behavior change intended to improve public health, safety, the environment, or community well-being (e.g., Home Depot and a utility promoting water con- servation tips). Corporate philanthropy involves a firm making a direct contribution to a charity or cause in the form of cash grants, donations, and/or linked services (e.g., WaMu awards cash grants to fund professional development of teachers). Com- munity volunteering refers to incentives a firm provides its employees to volunteer their time to support local community organizations and causes (e.g., employees of a high-tech company tutoring youth in middle schools on computer skills). Socially responsible business practices involve business prac- tices designed to support social causes, improve community well-being, and protect the environ- ment (e.g., Starbucks working with Conservation International to support farmers to minimize nega- tive impact on their local environment). Well-being marketing, the focus of this essay, can be viewed as a contribution to the literature involving the sixth aspect of corporate social responsibility–socially responsible business practices. In that context, much has been written on socially responsible marketing practices in the marketing ethics literature. Much of the literature in marketing ethics can be grouped in two major camps: descriptive (positive) versus prescriptive (normative) models of marketing practice. Descriptive or positive models of marketing ethics focus on explaining actual behaviors in an ethical situation (e.g., Hunt and Vitell 1986, 2006; Ferrell M. Joseph Sirgy is Professor of Marketing and Virginia Real Estate Research Fellow at Virginia Tech (USA). Dong-Jin Lee is Professor of Marketing at Yonsei University (Korea). Journal of Business Ethics (2008) 77:377–403 � Springer 2007 DOI 10.1007/s10551-007-9363-y and Grasham, 1986; Trevino, 1986; Wortuba, 1990). The focus of these models is to describe how marketers behave in ethical dilemmas. These models attempt to capture the ethical decision-making process and all the organizational, social, cultural, situational, and personality related factors that influence the various components of the decision- making process. Normative marketing ethics, on the other hand, is designed to advocate and establish guidelines for ethical marketing practice rather than attempt to report what practitioners say or do (Smith, 2001). Much has been written about prescriptive or nor- mative models of marketing. However, the vast majority of what has been done in this camp has focused on narrow topics such as design and man- ufacture of poor quality products, failure to ensure product safety, misleading advertising, among others (e.g., Cespedes, 1993; Mattsson and Rendtorff, 2006) and the prescriptive standards that marketers should adhere ‘‘minimize the damage.’’ With respect to general or overarching models of normative marketing ethics, Dunfee et al. (1999) found only four models that are distinctively normative. These are: Laczniak (1983), Williams and Murphy (1990), Reidenbach and Robin (1990), and Smith (1995). More recently, Laczniak and Murphy (2006) developed seven normative perspectives for ethically and socially responsible marketing. Although much of the work in normative mar- keting ethics is indeed commendable, the emphasis so far has been on the non-maleficence aspect of mar- keting practice. That is, the focus has been on devel- oping a set of guidelines to ensure that marketers� decisions are not likely to create damage to the firm�s stakeholders—customers, employees, distributors, suppliers, the environment, the local community, etc. The work presented in this article focuses on normative marketing ethics by integrating two aspects of marketing ethics: marketing beneficence and non-maleficence. Thus, what we attempt to do here is to develop a more comprehensive perspective of normative ethics. We call this perspective well- being marketing. The concept of well-being marketing Marketing has the potential to enhance consumer well-being in significant ways by providing con- sumers with goods and services that not only can enhance their overall quality of life but also do it safely—to the consumers themselves, to other pub- lics, and the environment. Reflecting this need, Kotler et al. (2002) emphasized marketing�s impact on the quality of life by stating that marketers should determine the needs, wants, and interests of target consumers and deliver satisfaction more effectively and efficiently than competitors in a way that pre- serves or enhances consumer well-being. The firm should deliver superior value to customers in a way that maintains or improves the customer�s and the society�s well-being. The traditional marketing concept overlooks possible conflicts between con- sumer short-run wants and consumer long-run welfare (Armstrong and Kotler 2002). Our concept of well-being marketing is grounded in societal mar- keting as introduced by Kotler (1979, 1986, 1987). Specifically, well-being marketing is a business philosophy that guides managers to develop and implement marketing strategies that focuses on enhancing consumer well-being through the con- sumer/product life cycle (acquisition, preparation, consumption, possession, maintenance, and disposal of consumer goods) and to do so safely in relation to consumers, other publics, and the environment. We define consumer well-being (CWB) as a desired state of objective and subjective well-being involved in the various stages of the consumer/product life cycle in relation to consumer goods. By providing need satisfaction over the entire consumer/product life cycle, well-being marketing guides the firm to establish long-term relationships with target con- sumers. Thus, the long-term objective of well-being marketing is the enhancement of CWB. In addition to enhancing CWB, well-being marketing pre- scribes that enhancement of CWB should not come at the expense of adverse conditions experienced byother organizational stakeholders (e.g., employees, the local community, the general public, and the environment). Although much has been discussed about well- being marketing and its implications to CWB (e.g., Sirgy 2001), we still have a limited understanding regarding its ethical basis, strategic implications, and implementation (4 Ps). More specifically, we ask: how different well-being marketing is from other philosophic concepts of marketing such as the marketing concept and relationship marketing in 378 M. Joseph Sirgy and Dong-Jin Lee guiding managerial decision-making? We answer the question by conceptualizing the domain of the well- being marketing construct and identifying its dimensions in terms of specific marketing mix decisions directly related to consumers� marketplace experiences: product acquisition, preparation, con- sumption, possession, maintenance, and disposal. Understanding well-being marketing should help marketers use this philosophic concept that is con- sistent with both organizational and societal goals. Consumer well-being (CWB) In this section, we review various circumscribed attempts to conceptualize CWB and then present in more detail our own conceptualization of CWB. However, before we describe the various concep- tualizations of CWB, the reader should be aware of the distinction between the concepts of consumer satisfaction and CWB. We view the American Consumer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) as highly representative of consumer satisfaction conceptualizations and measures. Much of consumer satisfaction research is guided by the theoretical notion that consumer satisfaction plays a major role in customer loyalty, repeat purchase, and positive word-of-mouth communications (e.g., Fornell, 1992; Fornell et al., 1996; Oliver, 1997; Szymanski and Henard, 2001). The goal is to enhance customer satisfaction for the purpose of ensuring higher levels of repeat patronage, ergo sales, market share, and profit. The ACSI measure is based on the notion that customer satisfaction is determined mostly by per- ceived value, perceived quality, and customer expectations. It is based on a survey of actual users of major brands in various product categories. The survey includes questions capturing customer expectations, perceived quality, value perceptions, satisfaction, customer complaints, and customer loyalty (Fornell, 1992; Fornell et al., 1996). The exact measurement constructs are shown in Table I. In contrast, the concept of CWB is inherently guided by a different meta-level concept, namely the link between consumer satisfaction and quality of life. In other words, the conceptualizations of CWB we review in this section are grounded on the implicit or explicit assumption that high levels of CWB reflect high levels of consumer�s quality of life—higher levels of life satisfaction, overall happiness with life, absence of ill being, societal welfare, etc. The acquisition model of CWB The acquisition model posits that CWB is deter- mined by satisfaction with acquisition of consumer goods. For example, Meadow (1983) generated a measure of CWB based on the consumer�s experience with retail institutions in purchasing food, housing, household operations, household furnishings, cloth- ing and accessories, personal care, medical care, rec- reation, transportation, and education. To reiterate, this approach focused on measuring overall acquisition or shopping satisfaction in one�s local area. Based on the theoretical notion of satisfaction hierarchy (e.g., Andrews and Withey, 1976; Aiello et al., 1977), the author used a sample of 249 elderly consumers to demonstrate that life satisfaction can be predicted TABLE I The measurement constructs involved in the ACSI 1. Expectation • Customer expectation about overall quality • Customer expectation about reliability • Customer expectation about customization 2. Performance • Perception of overall quality • Perception of reliability • Perception of customization 3. Value • Price given quality • Quality given price 4. Consumer satisfaction • Overall satisfaction • Satisfaction against expectation • Satisfaction against the ideal 5. Customer loyalty • Repurchase likelihood • Price tolerance (increase) given repurchase • Price tolerance (decrease) to induce repurchase 6. Customer complaints Source: Fornell, Claes, Michael D. Johnson, Eugene W. Anderson, Jaesung Cha, Barbara Everitt Bryant (1996), ‘‘The American Customer Satisfaction Index: Nature, Purpose, and Findings,’’ Journal of Marketing, 60 (October), 7–18. An Ethical Business Philosophy for Consumer Goods Firms 379 significantly from satisfaction with a host of retail establishments in the community. The possession model of CWB Others have focused on material possessions to capture CWB. For example, Nakano et al. (1995) examined consumers� overall satisfaction with their material possessions and standard of living. As part of a larger investigation of consumer socialization, Nakano et al (1995) used a two-question measure to capture CWB, namely: ‘‘How do you feel about your standard of living—the things you have like housing, car, furniture, recreation, and the like?’’ and ‘‘How do you feel about the extent to which your physical needs are met?’’ CWB is conceptualized as the composite of these items. In sum, CWB is construed in terms of satisfaction with one�s ownership of consumer durables and other material possessions. Sirgy et al. (1998) found that satisfaction with material possessions influences overall life satisfaction especially for those consumers who are highly involved with material possessions. The two-factor model of CWB Day (1978, 1987) and Leelakulthanit et al. (1991) conceptualized CWB as consumer satisfaction with acquisition and possession of consumer goods (durable goods). Acquisition satisfaction refers to con- sumer satisfaction with experiences related to the purchase of consumer goods in traditional retail establishments in one�s community. Examples include the assortment, quality, and price of goods available in local stores, the attractiveness of the stores, the courtesy and helpfulness of store person- nel, and after-purchase service provided by local stores (e.g., warranty policies). In contrast, the pos- session satisfaction focuses on subjective experiences related to material possessions (e.g., house/apart- ment, furniture, car/truck, clothing/accessories, savings, etc.) and overall satisfaction with those possessions. Leelakulthanit et al. (1991) found a significant relationship between acquisition/posses- sion satisfaction and life satisfaction, especially for older and low-income people. The consumer/product-life-cycle model of CWB Lee et al. (2002) argued that the dimensions of the consumer life domain are most appropriately con- ceptualized in terms of five stages of the consumer/ product life cycle: acquisition, possession, con- sumption, maintenance, and disposal (cf. Wilkie and Moore, 1999). They cited research evidence sug- gesting that consumers experience satisfaction and dissatisfaction across the entire consumer/product life cycle, and that consumer satisfaction with all the stages of the life cycle spills over onto other life domains affecting overall life satisfaction (e.g., Andrews and Withey, 1976; Campbell et al., 1976; Day, 1987; Lee and Sirgy, 1995; Meadow, 1983, 1988; Nakano et al., 1995). Specifically, acquisition satisfaction was defined as consumer satisfaction with respect to shopping and other activities involved in the purchase of consumer goods. Specifically, the authors identified seven factors of the acquisition experience that play a significant role in consumer satisfaction with shopping experiences, such as sat- isfaction with the quality, prices, hours, and services of stores in the local area. Possession satisfaction was defined as satisfaction that results from the owner-ship of major classes of consumer goods such as house or condominium, consumer electronics, and private transportation. Consumption satisfaction was defined as consumer satisfaction resulting from the use of consumer goods. It is closely related to but distinct from possession satisfaction, the difference being that possession satisfaction focuses on positive affect that flows from ownership per se, whereas consumption satisfaction focuses on satisfaction that flows from the actual use of the product. Maintenance satisfaction was defined as satisfaction consumers experience when they seek to have a durable product repaired or serviced. The authors concep- tualized maintenance satisfaction as having two major sub-dimensions—satisfaction with mainte- nance and repairs provided by service vendors in the community (i.e., repair services), and satisfaction with services that facilitate maintenance and repair by the owners themselves (i.e., do-it-yourself support services) such as satisfaction with price of replacement parts and tools and availability of necessary parts and tools in the local area. Disposal satisfaction refers to the degree of satisfaction consumers feel with the disposability of durable goods (e.g., satisfaction with 380 M. Joseph Sirgy and Dong-Jin Lee the convenience and ease of disposal and the envi- ronmental friendliness of the product at the time of disposal). There have been several empirical studies devel- oping and testing the validity of CWB measures in relation to several product categories such as per- sonal transportation and housing. With respect to personal transportation, Sirgy et al. (2006) found that consumer�s perceived quality-of-life impact of cur- rent vehicles is largely determined by satisfaction with purchase, preparation for personal use, own- ership, use, and maintenance (i.e., various experi- ences across the consumer/product-life-cycle with a particular product). In relation to housing, Grzesko- wiak et al. (2006) developed and tested the validity of a CWB measure based on the consumer/product life cycle model. The CWB measure captured home resident�s cumulative positive and negative affect associated with house purchase, use, maintenance, ownership, and selling. Our definition of CWB We define CWB as a state of objective and sub- jective well-being involved in the various stages of the consumer/product life cycle in relation to a particular consumer good. The consumer/product life cycle deals with various types of marketplace experiences a consumer has with a product from purchasing the product to its disposal. Specifically, the stages of the consumer/product life cycle are: product acquisition (purchase), preparation (assem- bly), consumption (use), ownership (possession), maintenance (repair), and disposal (selling, trade-in, or junking of the product). See Table II. The distinction between objective and subjective well-being is important. Subjective well-being refers to feelings of satisfaction/dissatisfaction the consumer experiences in a manner that contributes to his or her quality of life. What we are talking about here is consumer-life satisfaction or the link between con- sumer satisfaction and life satisfaction (overall hap- piness in life, overall sense of subjective well-being, or the perception of life quality). In contrast, objective well-being refers to an assessment by experts (e.g., engineers, scientists, consumer economists, safety experts) regarding consumers� costs and benefits as well as safety assessments (safety to consumers, others that come in contact with the product, and the environment). Specifically, in relation to product acquisition, subjective well-being translates into con- sumer satisfaction with the shopping for and the purchase of the product in a manner contributing to the consumer�s life satisfaction. In contrast, objective well-being in relation to product acquisition means experts� assessment that the product is high quality and the price is fair and affordable; also that the purchase experience is safe to the purchasers, the sales people and facilities, the general public, and the environment. With respect to product preparation, subjective well-being reflects consumer satisfaction with the preparation or assembly of the product in a manner contributing to the consumer�s quality of life (life satisfaction). Objective well-being in relation to product preparation means that the preparation or assembly of the product is assessed by experts to be easy (or convenient) and safe to the people who elect to prepare or assemble the product, the assembly facility, the general public, and the environment. In regards to product consumption, the subjective well-being dimension captures consumer satisfaction with the use of the product in a manner contributing to consumer�s quality of life. In comparison, the objective well-being dimension captures experts� assessment that the consumption of the product is significantly beneficial to those who use the product, and that the product is safe to consumers, the general public, and the environment. Focusing on product ownership, subjective well- being means consumer satisfaction with the owner- ship of the product in a manner contributing to the consumer�s quality of life. In contrast, the objective dimension captures experts� assessment that the ownership of the product has appreciable value and is safe to the owners, the general public, and the environment. Focusing on product maintenance, subjective well- being reflects consumer satisfaction with product maintenance and repair in a manner contributing to the consumer�s quality of life. Objective well-being associated with product maintenance reflects experts� assessment that the maintenance of the product is easy (or convenient), not costly (affordable), and safe to the people who are doing the maintenance, the maintenance or repair facility, the general public, and the environment. An Ethical Business Philosophy for Consumer Goods Firms 381 Finally, in relation to product disposal, subjective well-being signifies consumer satisfaction with the disposal (junking, trading-in, or re-selling) of the product in a manner contributing to the consumer�s quality of life. On the other hand, objective well- being means experts� assessment that the disposal of the product is easy (or convenient), not costly (or affordable), and safe to the person doing the disposal, the disposal facility, the general public, and the environment. We will discuss those aspects of subjective and objective well-being of CWB in greater detail in the remainder portions of the article. Therefore, the reader should expect greater clarity of the CWB concept and how it guides well-being marketing decisions as we move along into the article. Comparing the ethics of three marketing concepts: transactional, relationship, and well-being marketing Throughout the remainder part of the article, we will describe well-being marketing in terms of the TABLE II Our conceptualization of consumer well-being Subjective well-being (consumer satisfaction) Objective well-being (experts assessment of consumers� and societal costs and benefits) Product acquisition Consumer satisfaction with the shopping for and the purchase of the product in a manner contributing to the consumer�s quality of life Experts� assessment that • the product is high quality and the price is fair and affordable, and • the purchase experience is safe to the pur- chasers, the sales person/facility, the general public, and the environment Product preparation Consumer satisfaction with the preparation or assembly of the product for use in a manner contributing to the consumer�s quality of life Experts� assessment that the product is • easy (or convenient) and • safe to prepare or assemble to the preparer, the general public, and the environment Product consumption Consumersatisfaction with the use of the product in a manner contributing to the consumer�s quality of life Experts� assessment that the consumption of the product is • significantly beneficial to consumers and • safe to consumers, the general public, and the environment Product ownership Consumer satisfaction with the ownership of the product in a manner contributing to the consumer�s quality of life Experts� assessment that the ownership of the product • has appreciable value and • is safe to the owners, the general public, and the environment Product maintenance Consumer satisfaction with product mainte- nance and repair in a manner contributing to the consumer�s quality of life Experts� assessment that the maintenance of the product is • easy (or convenient), • not costly (affordable), and • safe to the repair person/facility, the general public, and the environment Product disposal Consumer satisfaction with product disposal (or trade-in or re-selling) in a manner con- tributing to the consumer�s quality of life Experts� assessment that the disposal of the product is • easy (or convenient), • not costly (affordable), and • safe to the disposal person/facility, the general public, and the environment 382 M. Joseph Sirgy and Dong-Jin Lee traditional elements of the marketing mix (i.e., the four Ps). In doing so, we contrast well-being mar- keting with two other forms of marketing, namely transactional marketing and relationship marketing. We do so to show how well-being marketing can be distinguished from traditional marketing (as captured in transactional and relationship marketing). We argue that well-being marketing is based on a busi- ness ethics philosophy that is more adapted to con- temporary society. To make this argument, we do the following in this section. We argue that the ethics supporting transaction marketing is based on the concept of consumer sovereignty of business ethics. We then argue that consumer sovereignty falls short in several ways, and thereforeit is not well-suited to contemporary society. Then we focus on the rela- tionship marketing and argue that this approach to marketing is grounded in stakeholder theory of busi- ness ethics. We then argue that stakeholder theory serves society better than transaction marketing, but nevertheless it also falls short. Finally, we define well- being marketing and show how this approach to marketing is grounded on business ethics concepts of duty of beneficence and non-maleficence. Our goal is to convince the reader that well-being marketing is most ethical in serving the business community, consumers at large, and society overall. The ethics of transaction marketing Transaction marketing is marketing guided by neo- classical economic theory. It focuses on profit max- imizing by recruiting more and more customers to purchase the firm�s product. Sales reflect the notion that the firm serves society by marketing a product that consumers need or want. A firm meeting market demand for consumer goods is a firm that serves society. Furthermore, the more sales, the more the firm prospers financially. Financial prosperity trans- lates into more jobs and economic security for the firm�s employees. The firm�s financial prosperity also benefits society through taxation—the more the firm sells, the more it is taxed, the more the tax revenues are used by government to provide public services that benefit society at large. Similarly, the more people are employed, the more tax revenues are generated through personal income taxation, which in turn serves society at large. Competition among firms to generate higher and higher levels of sales is the motivating force that drives firms to develop higher quality products and selling them at low prices. Thus, the drive to sell serves society by motivating the business enterprise to innovate and develop new and better quality products, and market those products at lower prices than the competition. When consumers purchase high-quality products at low prices, they reward firms that develop better products at lower prices. Thus, firms that are able to meet consumers� needs and wants for better products at lower prices sig- nificantly benefit (financially speaking), and those that cannot compete fall by the way side (e.g., Friedman, 1962, 1970; Scherer, 1971; Smith, 1776). Consumer sovereignty theory posits that society benefits when consumers vote with their pocket- books (e.g., Nelson, 1970; Smith, 1995; Smith and Quelch, 1993, pp. 30–34; Stigler, 1971; Thorelli and Thorelli, 1977). To do so, consumers have to be informed about the product�s quality and price. Consumer behavior is based on the assumption that consumers shop around and buy the highest quality product at the lowest price. Consumer sovereignty reflects the idea that consumers can serve society by engaging in ‘‘rational decision-making’’ and exer- cising their economic votes wisely. By selecting products that provide best value, consumers reward manufacturers that best serve consumers. Much of today�s business laws (e.g., anti-trust laws, con- sumer protection laws) are designed to ensure that consumers are well informed about their market choices. If they are well informed, they serve society by rewarding efficient firms that deliver ‘‘a better mousetrap at a lower price’’ and weed out inefficient firms that cannot deliver on the same terms. Nevertheless, market inefficiencies do occur in the form of sales that do not reflect market demand and the fulfillment of consumer wants. For example, Galbraith (1956, 1973, 1977, and 1985) has argued that many firms survive and prosper not because they market higher quality products at lower prices. They survive and prosper because they have countervail- ing power. They overwhelm their competitors through massive advertising and marketing com- munications campaigns. They also may control the channels of distribution, thus restricting consumer access to competitors. Furthermore, it has been An Ethical Business Philosophy for Consumer Goods Firms 383 argued that consumer sovereignty is increasingly becoming less relevant in the age of high tech, and that it fails to sufficiently guide ethical marketing practice (Sirgy and Su, 2000). This is due to the fact that many consumers lack the opportunity to be exposed to objective information about the quality and prices of competing high-tech products, and consumers also lack the ability and motivation to process this information (see Table III). The ethics of relationship marketing Relationship marketing is an emerging paradigm in marketing thought that focuses on the development and maintenance of quality relationship between ex- change partners for mutual benefit. Relationship marketing refers to all marketing activities directed towards establishing, developing, and maintaining successful relational exchanges (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). That is, relationship marketing is an integrated effort to identify, maintain, and build up a network with customers for mutual benefit over a long time. The conceptual domain of relationship marketing includes concepts such as trust, commitment, and satisfaction (e.g., Dwyer et al., 1987; Ganesan, 1994; Parvatiyar and Sheth, 1994; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). According to the stakeholder view of the firm (Freeman, 1984), a firm operates in a network of relationships. That is, a firm engages in various exchange relationships with many exchange partners including suppliers, customers, competitors, other functional departments within the organization, and various stakeholders in the society (e.g., Carroll, 1989; Evan and Freeman, 1988; Goodpaster, 1991; Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Robin and Reidenbach, 1987; Wheeler and Sillanpaa, 1997). Stakeholder theory is a grounded in the literature of business ethics and corporate social responsibility (e.g., Ca- roll, 1989). Stakeholders are typicallyclassified as external stakeholders, internal stakeholders, and distal stakeholders (e.g., Sirgy, 2002). Internal stake- holders are other functional departments and business units within the firm—other than the marketing department. External stakeholders refer to stakeholders outside of the firm, which survival and growth of the firm depends on (e.g., customers, shareholders, dis- tributors, and suppliers). Distal stakeholders refer to stakeholders that influence the survival and growth of the firm indirectly through external stakeholders (e.g., legal groups, consumer advocacy groups, government agencies). One can argue that the ethics of relationship mar- keting can be justified by stakeholder theory. A firm serves society well by establishing positive relation- ships with its various stakeholders. The firm does this by meeting the demands of stakeholders leading to trust and commitment. By the same token, if the primary stakeholders of marketing are customers and distributors, then stakeholder theory advocates that the marketing department within the firm should make every effort to cater to customers and distribu- tors in ways to elicit their trust and commitment. Doing so necessitates ethical marketing practice, which in turn serves society as a whole. Relationship marketers focus on developing long-term relationship with customers. Relationship marketing concentrates on generating repeated sales from customers by pro- viding satisfaction and establishing trust. Although one can argue that relationship market- ing is considered to be on a higher ethical plane than transaction marketing, it still falls short. Establishing positive relationships with customers based on trust and commitment does not ensure that the firm�s marketing decisions enhance consumer and society well-being. Consider the automobile industry. Many automobile manufacturers do a good job trying to establish positive relationships with customers. Cus- tomers are happy with their cars and the service pro- vided by the warranty and dealer network. Customers end up trusting their automobile manufacturers and their dealers. They feel a sense of loyalty and com- mitment to manufacturers and dealers. Paradoxically, the same automobile manufacturers might design their cars by cutting corners on safety measures. The same manufacturers might design more fuel-efficient cars to minimize toxic gas emissions and air pollution but choose not to. Relationship marketing based on stakeholder theory fails to guide marketing decision- making in areas concerning consumer safety, the safety of other publics, as well as the safety of the environment (see Table II). The ethics of well-being marketing Drucker (1969) has long maintained that business has a significant impact on society. Therefore, 384 M. Joseph Sirgy and Dong-Jin Lee T A B L E II I W el l- b ei n g m ar k et in g v is -à -v is tr an sa ct io n al m ar k et in g an d re la ti o n sh ip m ar k et in g T ra n sa ct io n al m ar k et in g R el at io n sh ip m ar k et in g W el l- b ei n g m ar k et in g S tr at eg ic p la n n in g E th ic al p h il o so p h y • C o n su m er so v er ei g n ty • S ta k eh o ld er th eo ry • D u ty o f b en efi ce n ce an d n o n -m al ef - ic ie n ce M aj o r st ra te g ic o b je ct iv es • F in an ci al g o al s (s h o rt te rm ) • F in an ci al g o al s (l o n g -t er m ) • F in an ci al an d so ci e ta l g o al s (l o n g - te rm ) S tr at eg y • D ev el o p in g m ar k et in g p ro - g ra m s d es ig n ed to en h an ce b ra n d p re fe re n ce an d p u r- ch as e • D ev el o p in g m ar k et in g p ro - g ra m s d es ig n ed to en h an ce cu st o m er sa ti sf ac ti o n , tr u st , an d co m m it m en t • D ev el o p in g m ar k et in g p ro g ra m s d e- si g n ed to en h an ce co n su m er w el l b ei n g T ar g et m ar k et • F o cu s o n d ev el o p in g b ra n d p re fe re n ce an d p u rc h as e in te n ti o n s o f n ew cu st o m er s • F o cu s o n d ev el o p in g sa ti s- fa ct io n , tr u st , an d co m m it - m en t o f cu rr en t cu st o m er • F o cu s o n d ev el o p in g w el l b ei n g o f co n su m er s w h o se q u al it y o f li fe ca n b e si g n ifi ca n tl y en h an ce d th ro u g h p ro d u ct ad o p ti o n , an d d o in g th is sa fe ly to co n su m er s, o th er p u b li cs , an d th e en v ir o n m en t C o n su m p ti o n /p ro d u ct li fe cy cl e • P ro d u ct p u rc h as e • P ro d u ct p u rc h as e, p re p ar a- ti o n , u se , o w n er sh ip , m ai n te n an ce , an d d is p o sa l • P ro d u ct p u rc h as e, p re p ar at io n u se , o w n er sh ip , m ai n te n an ce , an d d is - p o sa l P ro d u ct d ec is io n s F ac to rs co n si d er ed in p ro d u ct d es ig n , p ac k ag in g , w ar ra n ty , et c. • C o n su m er p re -p u rc h as e ex p ec ta ti o n s • C o n su m er p re -p u rc h as e ex p ec ta ti o n s • C o n su m er p re -p u rc h as e ex p ec ta ti o n s • C o n su m er p o st -p u rc h as e ex p ec ta ti o n s • C o n su m er p o st -p u rc h as e ex p ec ta ti o n s • S af et y co n ce rn s (c o n su m er s, o th er p u b li cs , th e en v ir o n m en t) • P ro d u ct im p ac t o n th e q u al it y o f li fe o f th e co n su m er P ri ci n g d ec is io n s F ac to rs co n si d er ed in p ri ci n g d ec is io n s • C o st s • C o st s • C o st s • P ro fi t g o al s • P ro fi t g o al s • P ro fi t g o al s • W h at th e m ar k et ca n b ea r • W h at th e m ar k et ca n b ea r • W h at th e m ar k et ca n b ea r • C o m p et it io n • C o m p et it io n • C o m p et it io n • C u st o m er p er ce iv ed v al u e • C u st o m er p er ce iv ed v al u e • C u st o m er o b je ct iv e v al u e • P ri ce af fo rd ab il it y • S af et y an d re m ed ia ti o n co st s An Ethical Business Philosophy for Consumer Goods Firms 385 T A B L E II I co n ti n u ed T ra n sa ct io n al m ar k et in g R el at io n sh ip m ar k et in g W el l- b ei n g m ar k et in g D is tr ib u ti o n d ec is io n s F ac to rs co n si d er ed in d is tr ib u ti o n d ec is io n s • S al es • S al es • S al es • M ar k et sh ar e • M ar k et sh ar e • M ar k et sh ar e • P ro fi t • P ro fi t • P ro fi t • C u st o m er ac ce ss & co n v en ie n ce • C u st o m er ac ce ss & co n v en ie n ce • C u st o m er ac ce ss & co n v en ie n ce • R ep ea t p u rc h as e & cu st o m er tu rn o v er • R ep ea t p u rc h as es & cu st o m er tu rn o v er • A cc es s, co n v en ie n ce , an d p le as an t en v ir o n m en t to re p ea t cu st o m er s • A cc es s, co n v en ie n ce , an d p le as an t en v ir o n m en t to re p ea t cu st o m er s • C o n su m er sa ti sf ac ti o n , tr u st , & co m m it m en t • S af et y an d et h ic al co n ce rn s • C u st o m er sa ti sf ac ti o n , tr u st , & co m m it m en t • A cc es s & co n v en ie n ce to cu st o m er s m o st li k el y to b en efi t th e m o st P ro m o ti o n d ec is io n s F ac to rs co n si d er ed in p ro m o ti o n d ec is io n s • B ra n d aw ar en es s • B ra n d aw ar en es s • B ra n d aw ar en es s • P re -p u rc h as e ex p ec ta ti o n s • P re -p u rc h as e ex p ec ta ti o n s • P re -p u rc h as e ex p ec ta ti o n s • B ra n d p re fe re n ce • B ra n d p re fe re n ce• B ra n d p re fe re n ce • P u rc h as e • P u rc h as e • P u rc h as e • P o st -p u rc h as e ex p ec ta ti o n s • P o st -p u rc h as e ex p ec ta ti o n s • S at is fa ct io n , tr u st , & co m - m it m en t • S at is fa ct io n , tr u st , & co m m it m en t • R ep ea t p u rc h as e • R ep ea t p u rc h as e • S af et y co n ce rn s • U se o f th e p ro d u ct to m ax im iz e q u al it y -o f- li fe im p ac t 386 M. Joseph Sirgy and Dong-Jin Lee business managers should accept the responsibility to preserve and enhance consumer and society well-being. The concept of well-being should be built into the firm�s mission and mindset of senior executives. This is most significant for large cor- porations since they tend to impact society more significantly than small firms. Drucker argued that executives should incorporate the concept of well being in their mission statement, business strategies, and daily operations for three reasons. First, the society�s costs for neglecting to do this are very high. Second, business is part of society, and not doing something about the preservation and enhancement of quality of life in society will ultimately affect business in adverse ways. That is, healthy business and a sick society are not com- patible. Third, improving consumer and society well-being should be a tremendous business opportunity. Many marketing scholars followed the lead of Drucker in calling for the kind of mar- keting that enhances both consumer and society�s well-being (e.g., Fisk, 1971; Kelly, 1974; Kotler, 1979). For example, Kotler (1979) referred to ‘‘societal marketing’’ as a concept equating well-being mar- keting. The societal marketing concept calls for a con- sumer orientation backed by integrated marketing activity aimed at generating consumer satisfaction and long-run consumer well-being as key to achieving long-run profitability. He developed a set of axioms for societal marketing. Examples include ‘‘Outside parties should be represented in seller decision-mak- ing’’ and ‘‘Sellers will be effective to the extent that they attempt to serve consumers� interests in addition to their desires.’’ Kotler (1986) defined marketing effectiveness in terms consumer and society well- being: ‘‘The organization�s task is to determine the needs, wants, and interests of target markets and to deliver satisfaction more effectively and efficiently than competitors in a way that preserves or enhances the consumer�s and society�s well-being’’ (p. 16). Kotler (1987) also suggested three stages of evo- lution of marketing. The first stage is the marketing concept. He argued that the marketing concept had emerged as a result of movement from a product orientation to a sales orientation to a marketing orientation. The marketing concept focuses on consumer wants. Marketers adhering to the mar- keting concept make no judgments about whether consumer wants are consistent or inconsistent with society�s well-being. The second stage of marketing evolution is the humanistic marketing concept. This concept posits that marketers consider both con- sumer wants and consumer interests. Thus, humanistic marketers do not tell people what they should have. Instead they market ‘‘better’’ goods and services and subsequently attempt to ‘‘educate’’ consumers about the benefits of the new and improved ‘‘products.’’ The third stage of the evo- lution of the marketing concept is societal marketing. This concept is designed to address the concerns of the humanistic marketing concept (i.e., some mar- keting practices may serve consumer wants and interests and yet hurt society�s interests). So what is a good definition of well-being mar- keting? We define well-being marketing for con- sumer goods firms as a business philosophy that guides the development, pricing, promotion, and distribution of consumer goods to individuals and families for the purpose of enhancing CWB at a profit (in the long run) in a manner that does not adversely affect the public, including the environ- ment. Because customers are considered to be the primary external stakeholder, marketers� primary responsibility is to meet the demand of their cus- tomers safely and enhance their quality of their life. But, because the firm�s marketing decision may ad- versely impact the well-being of other external stakeholders, it is vital that marketing decisions are made in ways to minimize possible adverse effects impacting the well-being of employees, distributors, suppliers, stockholders, etc. (Sirgy, 2001). Well-being marketing is grounded in duty ethics, especially the duty of beneficence and non-malefi- cence. Well-being marketing focuses on the enhancement of CWB. This is the essence of the beneficence component of well-being marketing (e.g., Beauchamp, 1999). The principle of beneficence refers to a general group of duties that include a positive injunction to assist customers. The principle of beneficence judges the ethical nature of an action based on the criteria that one ought to promote to good (Frankenna 1973, p. 47). The duty of benefi- cence is one of the Ross� (1930) prima facie duties in ethics–the duty that one recognizes at first sight as being obligatory when all other things being equal. Duty of beneficence is the sense of obligation we feel that there are people in the world whose An Ethical Business Philosophy for Consumer Goods Firms 387 situations we can improve. For well-being market- ers, it is a duty to improve the well-being of con- sumers by meeting their needs fully over the entire span of the consumer/product life cycle. Well-being marketing also focuses on preserving the well being of stakeholders. This is the essence of the moral duty of non-maleficience. The principle of non-maleficience refers to injunction not to inflict harm to others (Beauchamp, 1999; Fisher, 2001). The duty of non-maleficence is the sense of obli- gation that we should not harm others. Besides not inflicting harm, one ought to prevent or remove harm (Frankenna, 1973). Thus, well-being marketing is grounded in the ethics concepts of duty of beneficence and non- maleficence in that the focus is not only on serving consumers safely in a manner that contributes to their quality of life but also the preservation of well being of the firm�s other stakeholders (see Table II). We believe that the ethics of well-being marketing is on placed a higher plane than transaction and relationship marketing. Well-being marketing is more comprehensive in the way it accounts for both consumers� and society�s well-being. In the next section of the article, we analyze how the concepts of well-being marketing guide marketing decision- making. We will contrast marketing decision-making guided by well-being marketing with decision- making guided by transaction marketing, and relationship marketing. Implementing the concept of well-being marketing in the context of consumer goods firms In this section, we will further expound on well- being marketing by describing how, as a business philosophy, it guides both strategic and tactical marketing decisions. Marketing strategy guided by the well-being principle The strategic objectives of transaction marketing are short-term financial goals. Most firms, driven by a transaction philosophy, focus on quarterly sales and profit to assess the financial health of the firm and to set new goals for the coming quarter. The focus is short-term. Thus the impetus lies in recruiting new customers and making new transactions. Competi- tiveness is the state of mind of the transaction mar- keter. The goal is to gain more market share, to make customers belonging to competitors switch to the firm�s brand. Marketing performance is judged in terms of sales, market share, and profit. Much of the science and technology that helps the firm recruitnew customers is grounded on the psychology of brand preference and choice. Transaction-oriented firms focus on understanding the psychology of purchase to create marketing programs that entice new customers to purchase the firm�s product (see Table III). The marketing strategy of relationship-marketing firms is significantly different from transaction-ori- ented firms. The strategic objectives of relationship- marketing firms are more long term. The time horizon is not restricted to quarterly sales and profit. Marketing performance is assessed through financial and behavioral measures. The firm is said to be doing well not only when the financial numbers look good but also research shows that current customers are satisfied with the firm�s product, they have trust in the firm�s ability to deliver on its promises, and they are committed to doing business with the firm in the foreseeable future. Thus, relationship firms invest a great deal of resources in understanding the psychology of satisfaction, trust, and commitment, and develop marketing programs to increase customer satisfac- tion, trust and commitment. Furthermore, rela- tionship firms do not focus on enhancing customer satisfaction only through purchase. The focus of their marketing programs is post-purchase experi- ences—marketplace experiences related to product preparation, consumption, ownership, maintenance, and disposal (see Table III). In contrast to transaction and relationship firms, the strategic objectives of well-being firms involve both financial and societal goals. Marketing perfor- mance of a well-being firm is judged in terms of sales, profit, customer-life satisfaction, customer safety, employee safety, and safety to the environ- ment. The time horizon of well-being firms is long- term and multidimensional. Well-being firms invest in the science and technology related to quality of life studies; they develop marketing programs to enhance the quality of life of customers through the entire spectrum of marketplace experiences: product 388 M. Joseph Sirgy and Dong-Jin Lee purchase, preparation, consumption, ownership, maintenance, and disposal (see Table III). Product decisions guided by the well-being principle Product decisions (product design, packaging, labeling, branding, warrantee, technical assistance, etc.) guided strictly by transaction marketing may lead to short-term profitability, yes, but also may contribute to ill being. Of course, product decisions in that vein are guided by the goal of maximizing sales and reducing costs. In doing so, many of the product decisions are guided by an understanding of consumers� pre-purchase expectations. The product, the package, the warranty, etc. are all designed to meet consumers� purchase expectations. The goal is to deliver a product mix that would result in high brand preference and choice over competitor brands. In contrast, a relationship-marketing firm makes a host of product decisions to meet or exceed cus- tomer expectations, ultimately to ensure repeat business and brand loyalty. To reiterate, the goal here is to maximize customer satisfaction, trust, and brand loyalty. To do so, the marketer has to have a good understanding of not only pre-purchase expectations but also post-purchase expectations. Product decisions, guided by the well-being principle, focus on developing and marketing products that are significantly beneficial to con- sumers with little or no negative externalities. In other words, a firm guided by a well-being philos- ophy makes a host of product decisions in ways to significantly enhance the quality of life of individual consumers or families without adversely affecting employees, the local community, the environment, and the general public. Well-being marketing fo- cuses on maximizing consumer satisfaction across all six stages of the consumer/product life cycle (product acquisition, preparation, consumption, possession, maintenance, and disposal) with little or no negative externalities. Thus, the goal of a well- being firm is to enhance consumers� and society�s well-being—a concept above and beyond sales/ profitability and customer satisfaction/brand loyalty. Product decisions guided by the well-being principle are shown in Table III and described in some detail in the sections below. With respect to product decisions designed to enhance wellbeing in relation to product purchase, a transaction-oriented firm typically designs the product in units that are most sellable, making the transaction easy and convenient, and therefore marketable. In contrast, a relationship-oriented firm designs the product not only in units most sellable but also in volume and mass to make the transpor- tation logistics of the product easy and convenient to the customer. Transaction-oriented firms may not care about making transportation logistics easy and convenient for customers because they may feel that their job is done once the sale is consummated. Relationship marketers care much about post-pur- chase transportation logistics because not doing so may adversely affect customer satisfaction and repeat business. Well-being-oriented firms go two steps beyond what relationship marketers do. First, they make a concerted effort to ensure that product de- sign is not only guided by market demand and customer satisfaction/trust/commitment goals but also by safety concerns—the product is designed in such a way to ensure the purchase experience is safe to consumers, the general public, and the environ- ment. This is because safety is an important goal of well-being marketers. For example, in relation to transportation and shipping logistics, well-being firms are likely to make every attempt possible to ensure that the product package is safe to transport and safe to the transporter, the general public, and the environment. That is, the well-being oriented firm takes additional precautionary measures to de- sign a package for the product that, if damaged during transport, the contents would not spill and harm the customer (or transportation personnel), those in the vicinity of the spill, as well as the environment in terms of land, water, and/or air pollution (cf. Jacobs, 1988). Again safety issues re- lated to packaging are not likely to be viewed as important if guided by relationship marketing. Relationship marketing guides the firm to focus first and foremost on customer satisfaction, trust, and loyalty assessments. Furthermore, one can argue that packaging safety assessments are best captured by expert assessments, not customer perceptions and evaluations of safety issues related to shipping, transportation, and product logistics. Emphasis of safety issues during shopping reflects the non- maleficence component of well-being marketing. An Ethical Business Philosophy for Consumer Goods Firms 389 Second, well-being firms attempt to design the product in ways to make the purchase experience satisfying to the customer, not only in the sense that this satisfaction would lead to purchase but also satisfaction in the quality-of-life sense. It is the kind of satisfaction that makes a contribution to life sat- isfaction. This dimension of product strategy reflects the beneficence dimension of well-being marketing. Consider the example of Nextel and the way they make the purchase of their cell phones an exciting event at NASCAR-related events. Nextel sets up a playground at a racing event or more like a huge arcade. In that arcade, consumers are invited to play a variety of car racing simulation videos. This is an environment that is pleasant and exciting for con- sumers. It is an environment that enhances the purchase experience. For consumers whose lifestyle reflects NASCAR�s activities, interests, and opin- ions, the satisfaction generated in the context of a NASCAR event is highly involving, enduring, and adding to lifesatisfaction. With respect to product decisions designed to enhance well-being in relation to product preparation, transaction marketers attempt to maximize sales by ensuring that the product can be easily assembled or prepared for consumption. Many consumers do not have the necessary skills, patience, or stamina to assemble or prepare purchased products for con- sumption. This situation can be very frustrating for many customers, resulting in product returns. Most companies are contractually obligated to accept returns, which can significantly cut into profit. Product returns are averted by designing the product for easy assembly or preparation. The case in point is Ikea, the world�s largest home furniture manufac- turer. The firm produces home furniture with sim- ple design, modular interchangeable parts, and easy to assemble (Kumar et al., 2000). Furthermore, to ensure that the product is not returned, many transaction-oriented firms make a concerted effort to provide technical assistance to customers. Most firms of consumer goods provide technical assistance (in the form of customer service) to assist consumers in product assembly or preparation. Relationship-ori- ented firms also design the product for easy assembly. They also provide technical assistance to assist with product assembly. However, to ensure that cus- tomers are highly satisfied with the product (and feel trust and commitment toward the company), they go beyond what transaction firms do. They offer free product assembly, or they may charge a nominal fee for the assembly. Doing so, not only minimizes product returns, but also serves to enhance customer satisfaction, trust, and commitment. Well-being marketers do what relationship mar- keters do and go beyond relationship marketing in two ways. First, they design the product in such a way to avoid the possibility of customer injury while assembling the product and to ensure safety to others as well as the environment. In other words, safety is an important criterion in product assembly and preparation. Safety in product preparation is important, not only to customers, but also to the general public and the environment. Again, as pre- viously mentioned, this is the essence of the non- maleficence component of well-being marketing. Second, well-being marketers attempt to make the product assembly/preparation experience as satisfy- ing and meaningful as possible. Consider the fol- lowing example: the USA television channel has a movie program hosted by two anchor guests who during movie breaks comment about the movie while showing the audience how to cook a recipe. The recipe, of course, has food ingredients and/or cuisine utencils sponsored by specific manufacturers. The focus is to show how the manufacturer’s ‘‘product’’ can be prepared, and this demonstration is done in ways that is highly entertaining. Those watching the movie learn how to prepare the recipe. Imagine implementing this concept to help con- sumers prepare a host of products and things, from cooking with certain grocery items to assembling computers. The goal is to make the preparation experience fun, exciting, and meaningful to target consumers. This is the essence of the beneficence component of well-being marketing. With respect to product decisions designed to enhance well being in relation to product consumption, a good transaction firm designs a product by study- ing consumer purchase expectations. Understanding what consumers expect out of a product when consumed is important in designing the product to generate those benefits. Once the product is designed guided by purchase expectations, the transaction marketer promotes the product to tout those benefits. Doing so enhances the marketability of the product. For example, an automobile com- pany studies young adults� expectations used in 390 M. Joseph Sirgy and Dong-Jin Lee making car purchase decisions. The company finds out that these consumers seek cars that are sporty looking, equipped with nice CD/stereo system, and have power. As a result, the company designs a car to meet these expectations and targets this car to young adult consumers in a promotion campaign. Note that the product is designed to generate consump- tion utility guided by purchase expectations. In con- trast, a relationship marketing car manufacturer, targeting young adults, designs a car guided by pre- and post-purchase expectations. In other words, to generate consumption utility that leads to customer satisfaction, trust, and commitment, the relationship marketer takes into account how young adults evaluate the car after purchase and consumption, and how these evaluations lead to feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The goal is to design a car for these consumers in such a way to generate customer sat- isfaction after purchase and use. In this instance, post-purchase expectations may not only involve driving a sporty looking car equipped with nice CD/ stereo system, and having power, but also driving a car that is reliable, low on gas mileage, roomy en- ough to haul stuff, and reasonable in price not to hurt the pocketbook. In other words, the product is designed to generate utility guided by pre- and post- purchase desired expectations (cf. Park et al., 1986; Sheth et al., 1991; Sweeny and Souter, 2001). Again, the goal is to design a product to generate con- sumption utility in such a way leading to customer satisfaction, trust, and commitment. A car manufacturer guided by the well-being concept goes beyond the design standards of the relationship marketer. In addition to incorporating pre- and post-desired expectations into the design of the product, the well-being marketer is guided by safety concerns during consumption and a consump- tion experience that is most meaningful and enriching. With respect to safety concerns, both transaction and relationship marketers would include safety only if the research uncovers the fact that consumers do make pre-and post-purchase decisions based on car safety. Only then do car manufacturers design cars to ensure consumer safety. Manufacturers of consumer goods guided by a well-being philosophy design their products to ensure consumer safety (when the product is consumed) and safety of employees, the general public, and the environment (in the manufacturing and shipping of the product) (cf. Jackson and Morgan 1988). In other words, well-being firms feel obligated by a sense of social responsibility to ensure that their products (when consumed) will not adversely hurt others (others than the consumers) and not harm the environment by polluting the air, water, and/or land. Transaction- and relationship-marketing firms may focus on safety, but if so, they do this from the vantage point of the consumer (e.g., Bettman et al., 1986), not society at large. With respect to the design of the product to generate a meaningful and enriching consumption experience, well-being firms conduct research to identify pre- and post-purchase expectations that are linked with life satisfaction, not just customer satis- faction. How can the product be designed to max- imize the quality-of-life impact of the product? For example, in relation to personal transportation, marketing research is conducted to identify utilitar- ian, symbolic, and aesthetic features that would lead to positive affect in various life domains of the consumers (e.g., work life, family life, social life, leisure life, and travel life). A car designed to max- imize positive affect in the driver�s various life domains is the kind of car that is likely to play an important role in enhancing the well being of the driver, not the kind of customer satisfaction that is short-term, ephemeral, transient, or non-enduring. Therefore, well-being marketing prompts marketing researchers to use methods that go beyond customer satisfaction, methodsgrounded in quality-of-life research (see Sirgy�s [2001] Handbook for Quality-of- Life Research for research methods and measures). With respect to product decisions designed to enhance well being in product ownership, many products depreciate their market value very rapidly. Many companies design their products with prod- uct obsolescence in mind. A case in point is com- puter hardware. One can argue that transaction- oriented firms design products to maintain (or possibly enhance) their market value. However, they do so if, and only if, aspects of product appreciation/depreciation are identified as criteria in purchase decision-making. Sometimes consumers use criteria such as product obsolescence, durability, market value after purchase and use, and product appreciation/depreciation in purchase decision- making. If so, a transaction marketing firm has to design the product in such a way to convince consumers that their brand is better than competitor An Ethical Business Philosophy for Consumer Goods Firms 391 brands on durability and market-resale value. Relationship-marketing firms place emphasis on product durability and market-resale value too. However, they do so, when their market research indicates that durability and resale value are not only criteria in purchase decision-making but also customer satisfaction, trust, and commitment. The underlying assumption is that customers who are happy with the resale value of the brand are likely to remain loyal to that brand in future buying occasions. Well-being marketing does not only equate with relationship but also extends it in two significant ways: safety concerns and subjective well-being. With respect to the safety issue, well-being firms design a product to ensure that the ownership of the product is not associated with safety prob- lems—safety to the owners and their families, safety to the local community, the environment, and the general public. Consider the case of gun ownership or the ownership of rifles, assault weapons, and other lethal weapons. There are many consumers who collect weapons for a variety of reasons. Some do so for the monetary value as collectible items; some do so because consumers use them for hunting purposes; and so on. Social critics have long accused the gun industry for failing to ensure that gun owners are sufficiently educated to store these collectibles in a manner to avoid accidents to self and others. Well-being firms are very sensitive to safety concerns. In the case of gun ownership, they are likely to design weapons with high quality safety systems such as safety locks and storage bins that are highly secure. Furthermore, the well-being firm is motivated to design the product in such a way that its ownership becomes a part of an overall constellation of products and services signifying a lifestyle, a passionate hobby or vocation, or leisure activity. For example, some people are avid readers of mystery novels. Their reading activity reflects a lifestyle of sorts. Buying a mystery novel is not simply an end goal. Buying a mystery novel allows the reader to add that novel to his or collection of mystery novels, which partly defines consumer�s identity. Adding to one�s col- lection of mystery novels does not simply generate customer satisfaction with the purchased item but also the kind of satisfaction that is linked with one�s overall personality and self-concept. This satisfaction can be viewed as life satisfaction, happiness, or subjective well being. What about product maintenance? Many transac- tion-oriented firms provide their customers a product warranty. A warranty helps the customer when the product is in need of service or repair (cf. Dunne et al., 2002; Udell and Laczniak, 1981). These firms provide a good warranty to enhance the sale potential of their products. In contrast, relationship-marketing firms do the same to increase brand loyalty and enhance the chances of repeat business. In doing so, they go beyond the traditional warranty. A good warranty offered by a relationship-marketing firms focuses on both pre- ventative and reactive maintenance (e.g., Chonko, 1985). That is, the warranty is designed to (1) help the customer periodically service the product to prevent malfunctioning, and (2) help the customer repair the product when it malfunctions. Such a warranty develops customer trust and reinforces brand loyalty (Thurau and Hansen, 2000). A product that is more reliable and durable decreases the product�s need to be serviced and repaired frequently. Reliability and durability are typically product attributes desired by consumers, and therefore these attributes are manifested in the kind of research conducted by consumer goods firms. Transaction firms typically make engineering deci- sions concerning product quality improvements by assessing consumers� perception of reliability and durability. These firms make reliability and dura- bility improvements to the product only if mar- keting research shows that product reliability and durability are important criteria in purchase deci- sion-making. In contrast, relationship-marketing firms are motivated to make reliability and dura- bility improvements to the product when market- ing research shows these product attributes are important in the development of customer satis- faction, trust, and commitment. Well-being firms are very conscientious about safety concerns. The maintenance warranty offered by the firm is safe-proof. That is, the warranty program has been tested and re-tested to ensure that no aspect of reactive or preventative maintenance is likely to jeopardize the safety of customers, employees, the environment, as well as the general public. In addition to the safe-proof warranty pro- gram, well-being firms do not hesitate to recall their 392 M. Joseph Sirgy and Dong-Jin Lee products when evidence arises concerning lack of safety. Well-being firms also are likely to provide a maintenance program that can induce feelings of subjective well-being. For example, there are many car owners that are emotionally involved with their cars. The car reflects their identity, their status, and the image they project to others. These customers read much about cars. They pay attention to ads about cars. They are opinion leaders in that they talk to others about cars. These people are likely to take care of their cars in a manner that feeds their subjective well-being. In other words, they spend much time, energy, and money to take care of their cars. These maintenance activities meet a variety of needs across several life domains contributing to life satisfaction. Car manufacturers and dealers have an opportunity to further enhance life satisfaction to consumers highly involved with their cars by offering them a mainte- nance program that can induce feelings of subjective well-being. For example, the car dealer may offer a maintenance course to their customers. They may allow customers to bring their cars into the shop and have them conduct reactive and preventative main- tenance themselves, with the professional auto mechanics lending a hand only if and when needed. Finally, we have product decisions related to product disposal. Transaction-oriented firms are likely to use environmentally-friendly product ingredients and/or packaging if consumer research uncovers that consumers do indeed consider environmental- friendly dimensions of the product in purchase decision-making (e.g., Wasik, 1996). The rationale is to deliver what consumers want; otherwise, the product will not sell. Relationship-marketing firms, on the other hand, attempt to find out the role of environmentally-friendly product ingredients and packaging in developing customer satisfaction, trust, and commitment. If research were to indicate that customers feel more satisfied (feel more trusting and committed to the brand) becauseof its environ- mentally-friendly ingredients and packaging, the firm acts to design its product with more environ- mentally ingredients and packaging. Well-being firms are motivated by corporate so- cial responsibility and environmental stewardship. This means that the product has to be designed keeping in mind that it will be disposed after con- sumption, and the disposal of that product should not contribute to environmental degradation. In addition to the design of the product with envi- ronmentally-friendly ingredients and packaging, the well-being firm makes every effort to ensure that the disposal activity is not only safe to the environment but also to those involved in the act of disposal, whether they are consumers or disposal service personnel. Furthermore, well-being firms are likely to offer their customers the opportunity to trade-in their consumed product with newer and upgraded ones. This could be in the form of continuously developing a product line with new upgrades or new features that can serve peripheral needs. For exam- ple, a consumer whose cell phone is damaged sends it back to the manufacturer, and the manufacturer sends back an upgraded model. This exchange may be part of the product warranty. Thus, the disposal experience becomes an exciting event in which the customer experiences subjective well-being by exchanging his old product with an upgrade. Pricing decisions guided by the well-being principle Pricing decisions guided by a well-being philosophy are very different from pricing decisions guided by either transactional or relationship marketing. Typ- ically, a transaction-oriented firm makes pricing decisions guided by factors such as cost-plus (plus a margin to achieve a desired profit level), what the market can bear, and competition. Relationship- marketing firms also price their products using cost- plus and market demand methods. Additionally, their pricing decisions are guided by customer per- ceptions of value (e.g., Sweeny and Souter, 2001; Woodruff, 1997; Zeithaml and Bitner, 2000). Doing so ensures higher levels of profitability in the long run, mostly through repeat business. In contrast, well-being firms make pricing deci- sions guided by additional factors such as experts� assessment of product value, price affordability, and cost of safety and remediation (cf. Kotler et al., 2002). A well-being firm tries to balance societal goals with the firm�s financial goals (Kotler, 2003). Pricing decisions guided by the well-being principle are summarized in Table III and described in some detail in the sections below. With respect to the purchase stage of the con- sumer/product life cycle, well-being firms are gui- ded by other factors in addition to cost, profitability An Ethical Business Philosophy for Consumer Goods Firms 393 goals, what the market can bear, competition, and customer perceived value. First, well-being market- ers are likely to use both subjective and objective assessments in determining value. In other words, well-being marketers do not strictly rely on cus- tomer perception of value; they take into account experts� assessment of value. Consumer Reports value ratings are an example of what we mean by ‘‘objective assessment of value.’’ Taking into account experts� evaluation of value is important because in many instances consumers do not have knowledge or ability to assess product performance in relation to price. Second, well-being marketers take into account price affordability. Their goal is not to maximize profit in the short run as is typical for transaction firms. Their goal is not to maximize profit in the long run as is typical for relationship- marketing firms. Their goal is to place the product with as many consumers who need the product as much as possible. This means consumer affordance of the product�s price. Consider the flowing case involving Tata Motors in India. This is a large auto maker that recently developed a $2,200 passenger car, distributed in a kit and assembled at point of sale. Thus, making a ‘‘people�s car’’ affordable to a vast segment of the population in India is the primary motive driving this venture (Kripalani, 2005). Third, well-being firms are typically safety-conscious in their pricing decisions. For example, if their product is determined to degrade the environment in certain ways, then the cost of environmental restoration is included in the price of the product. The same additional factors (objective value, price affordability, and safety/remedial costs) are equally involved in pricing decisions involved in product preparation, use, ownership, maintenance, and dis- posal. Specifically, in product preparation, marketers have to price parts and tools necessary to prepare or assemble the product or for providing technical assistance (in the form of customer service) to assist customers in the product assembly or preparation. Consider the case of a furniture retailer selling inexpensive furniture to working class families. The retailer allows the furniture to be assembled at the store�s warehouse with the assistance of warehouse personnel at no extra charge. With respect to pricing decisions designed to enhance well-being in product consumption, there are many consumer products in which consumers not only pay for the purchase of the product but also every time the product is used. Many examples involve the telecommunications industry (e.g., wired telephone, cellular telephone, Internet access, satellite television, and cable television). Consider the case of cellular service provider targeting the poor by providing very low prices. A family is given five cell phones for free; the service plan is very affordable; and poor families end up saving money by disconnecting their hard-line phones. With respect to pricing decisions designed to enhance well-being in product ownership, many firms help consumers assume ownership of high-ticket items (e.g., automobiles). Ownership of certain consumer goods (e.g., car, house, furniture, and household appliances) has been shown to contrib- ute significantly to life satisfaction (e.g., Belk, 1985; Lee and Sirgy, 1995; Leelakulthanit et al., 1991). Material possessions bring about feelings of power, control, and exclusivity. Also, possessions allow consumers to express their identities to significant others. Consumers gain social approval by doing so. Similarly, well-being firms help consumers assume ownership of high-ticket goods. Well-being mar- keters� pricing of credit is guided by additional factors such as experts� assessment of value, con- sumer affordance, and other costs related to safety. Consider the case of housing. A developer in a community finds out that there is a significant segment of the poor and disabled elderly needing better housing. The challenge is not to simply build low-income housing for that market segment but also to help those consumers assume ownership of their homes. To do so, the developer joins forces with a mortgage company to facilitate ownership of affordable homes. With respect to pricing decisions designed to enhance well-being in product maintenance, many consumer goods companies offer repair services from the manufacturing site. Customers ship their malfunctioned product, and the manufacturer re- pairs the product and charges for replacement parts and labor (minus what was guaranteed by the product warrantee). Well-being firms strive to price repair services affordably. Consider a com- puter company that offers special computers for the disabled who are supported by entitlement programs. Through marketing research, the com- pany finds out that these consumers cannot afford 394 M. Joseph Sirgy and Dong-Jin Lee to spend more than 5% of their annual income on computers and computer repairs. The 5% amounts to approximately $3,000. The computer manu- facturer strives to price the special
Compartir