The ethical marketer

How Blind Should Trust Be?

2011-07-31T09:14:00.000-07:00

What struck me most about the Murdoch inquisition was the ebb and flow, not of conversation but of trust, within News International and News Corporation.

Of course that should be a necessary and reciprocal part of any business, but that’s only really possible when accompanied with information. And whilst trust may have been given and received freely within the organisation, information clearly wasn’t.

So is it appropriate for senior management to have blind trust in its employees?

Much of an organisation’s culture and value system comes from the top. It’s the heads that set the company’s moral compass and dictate what is and is not acceptable and expected behaviour. Leaders can only really lead effectively by example. And if their practice is to give blind trust then this will filter down the organisation and arguably focus line management on the output, and not necessarily the methodologies involved, or their associated ethical implications.

I guess it’s more myopic trust really, but it’s certainly a facet of many businesses’ management ethos and is one that is damaging, and in the current climate intolerable and unsustainable.

The basis of trust is information. And its dissemination should be shaped by ethically-sound codes of practice, which are shared, embedded and policed. Such codes should articulate the acceptable behaviours staff can employ to meet the business objectives. Enshrining the company’s stated values and ethics in codes and guidelines, sets the moral standard throughout the business.

But trust and information also need opportunity. Staff must have ample opportunity to discuss and raise issues regarding trust and ethics as a course of day-to-day business. The organisational culture must accommodate and encourage this if a truly trustworthy and trusted company is desired.

I’m not sure I believe blind trust really exists in the business environment. Wilful blindness on the other hand is a topic I’ve blogged about before http://ethicsandmarketing.blogspot.com/2011_01_01_archive.html.

So I guess for me the bottom line is if you think you’ve got an issue, trust your instincts and test your ethics.

Is it time for Ronald to hang up his overalls?

2011-05-23T14:48:00.000-07:00

Yet another complaint against McDonald’s in the US http://www.lettertomcdonalds.org/ . This time in the form of a letter from hundreds of health professionals asking that Ronald McDonald no longer be used as a tool to market junk food to children.

But one of the most interesting points in the letter is the comment that urges McDonalds to lead the way in affecting change in the industry. I agree. Because the business world needs leaders and challengers. Without them, businesses can justify irresponsible behaviour as ‘normal business practice’. And its ubiquity, especially in the absence of legal restrictions, can render it acceptable.

I tell my kids that sometimes the right thing to do, is the hard thing to do. This certainly holds true in business. I’ve argued in previous blogs (http://ethicsandmarketing.blogspot.com/2010/08/are-your-ethics-hunky-dory.html) and articles (http://www.adworld.ie/features/read/?id=677b9306-7667-4146-aa06-1bef94a35b64) that just because a brand can, doesn’t mean it should. Sometimes not doing something, even if it’s going to make the business money, is actually the right thing to do.

This letter, joins the long line of other protests, requests and pleas – all increasing in desperation. And I truly despair that the growing tumult regarding data, statistics and professional insight around childhood obesity is still falling on deaf brands.

Brands may nod and appear to hear what’s being said. But in reality few actually listen. And even fewer pro-actively share the burden of collective responsibility.

A RESPONSIBLE MOVEMENT - FLAGGED ON CONSUMER RIGHTS DAY

2011-03-15T06:56:00.000-07:00

We may be up to our oxters in a recession but there’s some green shoots of responsible recovery in evidence.

I’ve blogged and tweeted various brands’ individual activities in this regard, but am today heartened to see industry-wide moves. Especially as they’re all the more important being announced on Consumer Rights Day:

Today March 15th in the UK, more than 150 brands have signed up to the government’s “Responsibility Deal” http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publichealth/Publichealthresponsibilitydeal/index.htm This is about food and drink brands embracing the increasing view that companies need to act responsibly, whether they’re legally obliged to do so or not. This is about taking collective responsibility and an individual moral position, on improving consumer health.

Although announced today, some of the product promises have, in reality, been a while in the making. Brands have long recognised the consumer movement away from less healthy options, so arguably this is a move motivated as much by market and profit as morals. But to be fair, the actions regarding displaying calories on menus and labeling changes, indicate a clear leaning towards greater transparency. And something I’ve long called for – better consumer education and information.

Also the brands’ commitment to increase physical activity in the workplace and improve workplace health is inspiring. This is about implementing ethics throughout the value chain and taking responsibility for employees’ health as well as consumers.

With regard to the drinks industry, it’s now promising to ensure advertising is not within a certain radius of schools http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/sectors/food-and-drink/alcohol-industry-to-ban-school-ads/3024393 Again this shows a shift in the industry’s mindset, building on what it has already created - a recognisable and cognisant responsibility towards young vulnerable consumers.

In isolation each activity by each brand might seem quite discrete. But when collated, these show a distinct directional shift… I guess you could say the industry is taking a leaf out of its own advertising campaign and living the Change4Life message.

Can innocent guilt exist?

2011-01-08T08:19:00.000-08:00

As Newstalk’s George Hook rightly observed (26/11/2010) to talk about ethical business behaviour implies that there is unethical business behaviour - which of course there is. But is this ever excusable?

Of course a brand accused of any immoral wrongdoing would be quick to defend itself on some ground, but could one such ground be ignorance, or perhaps even innocence?

For the Conservative Party’s Children’s Taskforce, I interviewed a global food brand’s marketing director regarding its website’s inappropriate content for children, and he claimed to be unaware of the brand’s online activity. Admittedly, the bigger the brand the greater the challenge to be aware of all aspects of its marketing, but isn’t that one to which a senior manager must rise?

The much publicised Nike story of many years ago is a case in point: Senior managers at the time claimed to be unaware of the full extent of their suppliers’ questionable ethical behaviour. They quickly discovered that ignorance was not bliss, and that everything along the brand’s value and supply chains was applicable to, and impacted on, their business and their bottom line. Nike’s stated innocence of their suppliers’ guilt, at the time held little sway amongst consumers and it is a lesson well learnt by one of the world’s leading and most successful brands.

The role of marketing within an organisation means its tentacles should reach every aspect of the business. Where it may be difficult for its controller to be cognisant in detail, of all marketing-related activity, it is at least advisable to have best practices articulated, updated and embedded within the organisation.

Of course codes, contracts and committees can’t guarantee behaviour. But they at least show an intent, signal an expectation, and importantly layout an agenda for a pre-emptive discussion. All of which endorse a brand’s ethical position and clearly signpost that stance to partners, suppliers and stakeholders.

This blog’s wordcount is only the tip of the iceberg regarding this debate, but my ultimate conclusion is not so much that innocent guilt exists, but that guilty innocence is unacceptable and inadvisable for any marketer in this day and age.

Youthopia and the Generation Game

2010-12-16T11:32:00.000-08:00

Kids Grow Old Young or KGOY is a well known concept regarding children, and today’s children certainly seem to be getting older younger.

But the lesser discussed topic is what I call Adults Grow Young Older, or as the Sunday Times more eloquently put it recently “downaging”. This is where age is no longer viewed as a milestone that dictates music, fashion, travel or even lifestyle.

I’m not referring just to the traditional grey market of Mick Jaggers and Helen Mirrens. There’s also evidence that the forty plus age group struggle to accept typical middle age trappings, and are not willing to let go of their thirties’ attitudes lightly. And whilst physiologically puberty is now starting earlier, teenage behaviour is extending beyond the teens as their dependency on the home and parents now continues well into their twenties.

This downaging has serious marketing repercussions:

Firstly, the segments and categories we typically create as marketers need to be seriously overhauled and even then should not be viewed as rigid.

Secondly, the ubiquitous power struggle between parent and child has shifted not only towards power sharing but significantly, also towards brand sharing. Some years back BRANDchild (by Martin Lindstrom and Patricia Sey, Kogan Page Publishing) told of children’s growing influence on adults’ brand purchases, but now the dividing line between brand appeal for adults and children is distinctly blurred.

I have long said children have an important impact on brands, but this segmental shift means the Youth Effect is everywhere. So whilst KGOY is a key emotional driver for the youth market, Youthtopia is an aspiration for all of the other age categories. Marketers, take note.

Sustainable ethics

2010-12-09T05:36:00.000-08:00

Unilever’s recent sustainability drive is being questioned in marketing circles, and no doubt in shareholder circles too.

But there’s real insight in this move, if you care to look a little deeper:

• To start with, the drive is accredited to listening to consumers. Unilever is not alone in recognising consumer’s growing conscience and their willingness to engage with credible trustworthy brands, The Food and Drink Federation (FDF UK) for example has also created a new sustainable practice.

• And of further significance, is that sustainability will now sit within Unilever’s marketing remit, as opposed to perhaps being the adjunct to strategy that CSR too often is. After all 'sustainability' is a consumer message that market oriented businesses must embrace and embed in their marketing, beyond the CSR report

• There’s also evidence to suggest that shareholders are less sceptical about such initiatives now. Investec’s new sustainable message and especially its ”Money isn’t everything” line is testament to this

• And recession or not, global brands are still cognisant of the need to keep sustainability on the agenda (www.bsr.org) - as per my previous blog

• Finally, the apparent hypocrisy of brands encouraging a behavioural change to consume less, can be countered by a message to consume more wisely - which incidentally also resonates particularly well in times of economic restraint. The emphasis here should be more about need than want, and critically about building trust that generates gains in terms of loyalty and growing a customer base.

But what pleases me most about this announcement, is that it is yet another indication of a genuine move towards business conducting itself more ethically, and the clear evolution of what corporate citizenship should, and can, be.

Great expectations.... at Christmas

2010-11-26T11:21:00.000-08:00

Dicken’s novels invariably open with a bleak description of the landscape – much like the current mood in Ireland. So as we near Christmas, how do we manage children’s typically consumer-driven expectations?

As a parent we need to first consider our own consumption, because as the tagline goes (see the previous blog) “What children see. Children do”. And if we continue to any degree with the ‘possession obsession’ we had during the Celtic Tiger, our children will set their own expectations accordingly.

Parents need to be savvy to children’s needs versus children’s wants. And marketers too. The Grandaddy of marketing Kotler described marketing’s original purpose as satiating consumers’ needs, not the more modern day activity of marketing creating consumers’ wants and then blurring the line between wants and needs.

Successful marketing is about being customer-focused, and in line with this, marketing this Christmas needs to allow for the changed recessionary consumer.

Campaigns like Smyths in Ireland and Hamleys in the UK’s 'bring in your unwanted toys and we’ll recycle or donate them', help set the tone for children and give parents the opportunity to discuss a less flaithiulacht approach to Christmas.

And more than that, this type of relevant and responsible behaviour bodes well for the brand image: my own research has shown that parents expect companies that sell products for children to behave responsibly. And that it is with those companies that parents want to engage.

Marketing, especially at Christmas time, and especially in a touch economic climate, needs to be responsible. And very careful about setting the bar too high for parents. Or/and indeed too high for the products in terms of delivering the children’s expectations.

Ultimately it all comes back to good people engagement. For parents this means manage the expectations… or else expect to be managed.

Taking consumer education to task

2010-11-24T05:07:00.000-08:00

I’m a big fan of consumer education initiatives. Done right, such programmes empower the consumer to make informed decisions – the emphasis being on “informed”.

However, as noted by the CEO of Unilever, strategy is 5-10%, execution is the rest. And it is the execution of education programmes that I’m calling to task:

My case in point is the recent “What children see. Children do” campaign. As a mother of four, the TV ad resonates. I think it’s punchy accurate and appropriate. And for anyone who thinks it’s too blunt, check out other countries’ "Children see. Children do" ads on You Tube.

Where this campaign falls down however, is the poster execution of the TV ad. Because it is exactly that – a still from the ad on a poster. And while on one hand it conveys the right message, on the other it shoots itself so badly in the foot: Have a look at the image of the poster and bear in mind that this is at a bus stop directly opposite the main entrance of a primary school where 400 four to twelve year olds see it every day twice a day. What Children See. Children Do.

I’m not looking to apportion blame, but what this illustrates is the need to drill down when planning these initiatives, else run the risk of undoing all the good.

Multi-discipline marketing should never be a cut and paste job. It seems the marketing industry has learnt that from on and off line campaigns, but not for above the line media. And where there’s an educational intent the all-important message should be protected and the medium tested.

Because for educational communication, it’s crucial that the messenger doesn’t shoot the message.

“Purpose” a purchase trigger and CSR still a focus – according to latest research

2010-11-06T13:37:00.000-07:00

Cause related marketing is dead, long live Responsible RoI…

OK this isn’t quite true, but two interesting pieces of research allude to this as a possible new state of marketing affairs (and are also testament to what I’ve been saying for some time now):

According to The Global Edelman Goodpurpose Study http://www.goodpurposecommunity.com/ just released, more than half of consumers have more trust in a brand that is ethically and socially responsible. And crucially, 57% believe brands need to integrate good causes into their day-to-day business, with 90% of consumers feeling that brands needed to do more than just give money to charities and should consider society's interests as much as the business'.

Juxtapose these findings with global consulting and research company BSR’s http://www.bsr.com/ - which found that business leaders are still focused on sustainability and increasingly on social issues, despite the recession – and my suggestion of new marketing order is justified.

I could of course bore you with countless academic studies that further endorse both sets of findings, but as I keep saying in these blogs, actions speak louder than words. So instead I suggest you acknowledge what is fast becoming good business practice in terms of engaging corporate citizenship, and examine how this might apply to your brand.

If the current economic climate has not dampened global business leaders’ consideration of sustainable and CSR-related issues, then there must be some similar resonance or at least reason, with all commercial enterprise, regardless of size. Because what both reports illustrate is that the consumer and the public view have shifted significantly over the last few years. This is more a consumer-driven shift than a recessionary one, with the facilitating catalyst being the internet.

The domino effect of new consumer attitudes and rising social issues, has led to new consumer behaviour and therefore an alternative marketing paradigm, that’s worth serious consideration. Because, to quote a UK businessman, “if you see a bandwagon, you’re too late”

National Cliché Day

2010-11-03T04:40:00.000-07:00

On this, National Cliché Day, I want to impugn the over used: “It’s just business”.

Because in my opinion, it is never “just business”. Business is about people: people making products; people providing a service; people buying that service or product; people being affected by that service or product.

Of course businesses’ raison d’etre is to make a profit, and it is the profitable companies that create employment etc etc. I hear the argument. But my point is that business should not JUST be about profit. I’d sooner replace “People before profit” with “People equals profit”.

If business is just business then where does community or citizenship come in? And why do so many successful companies espouse values like integrity, connection and respect? Because there is a genuine, and modern day, resonance in the cliché “We are what we do”. And this also applies to business.

Thankfully, there are plenty of great examples to restore my too oft-challenged faith in business. The most recent of which I read in the Irish Times (Tuesday November 2, 2010):

Maud’s Merry Maids (Bellarose Foundation) is a cleaning business with all the corporate concerns of employees, customers, accounts and profits. But it also provides a free cleaning service for women returning home after Cancer treatment or surgery, the value of which, to those families, cannot be measured in financial terms.

The owner’s appreciation of and ability to view its business beyond just profit delivery, illustrates exactly why business is not just business. What it is giving back to the community it serves is relevant and needed, and importantly within its business capability and remit (as opposed to simply throwing money at a charity).

It is laudable and noteworthy, and yes, I’m sure there’s also the added bonus of goodwill and good PR. Because as one of my favourite clichés goes: “Doing good, can be good for business”.

Defining ethics (and arguing semantics)

2010-10-31T01:27:00.000-07:00

Let’s lay down an appropriate marker and start with the individual’s worth ethic:
Typically we view this as the person’s way of working, and what they deem to be appropriate behaviour. So ethics can be translated into values, conduct and responsibilities.

Then there’s a business’ ethics: These are the values that complement the organisation’s vision and mission, and underpin the brand’s strategy. They are the brand’s moral compass that directs staff on what is acceptable and appropriate for the brand.

These values are driven by senior management. They can be explicit in terms of their articulation at board level and on various governance and consumer reports. But even where they are not formally introduced to staff, or indeed suppliers, they are implicitly evident in every function of the business including marketing. Furthermore, studies show that individuals emulate senior management behaviour, which they believe is what is expected of them, even if it contradicts their own morals.

So ethical marketing then, is based on the organisation’s and the brand’s ethics - regardless of whether they are communicated or discrete.

But here’s the rub:

Logic dictates that the most effective marketing is that which aligns the brand’s values to those of the customer. And customer and market oriented businesses, enjoy better performance, profitability and sustainable competitive advantage (Slater & Narver, Webster, and Hunt & Morgan respectively). So it follows that at a time when the customer is looking for greater integrity and honesty, these are the Utopian values that today’s brands should emulate to succeed. (A possible logic applied to the latest RaboDirect posters perhaps?)

Ultimately, I have two critical points I want to make here:

1. ethics is about behaviour, it’s what you do not what you say
2. ethics are lived through people, so they must be defined and communicated throughout the value chain and not just in the boardroom.

The metrics of ethics

2010-10-20T02:35:00.000-07:00

You know the adage: “If you can’t measure it, how do you know it works?” Well ethics is no exception. But the metrics are as diverse as the definitions.

CSR is one of the antecedents of economic performance (McGee 1998) and can be used to strengthen corporate image and “ultimately economic/financial performance” (with the reverse also holding true). But ethics goes further than CSR. Much further:

An organisation’s ethics should be enshrined in every aspect of its activity from product to customer to supplier to staff. They should be embedded in every business function (especially marketing) within the organisation, so that everyone involved is aware of your position from an ethical and values perspective.

By articulating and communicating your organisation’s ethics, it should be possible to review and to manage how they affect each area of the business.

For example, ethical companies tend to be more customer oriented, and therefore measuring consumer behaviour is one option. Evaluating marketing performance is another. And as companies with communicated ethics and values have greater staff commitment, then measuring staff performance and loyalty are other metrics to consider.

Then there’s Anmbler, Kokkinaki & Puntoni’s (2004) model that covers off three significant bases, all of which present tangible aspects of the business that can be measured:
• Relationships: with consumers, stakeholders, shareholders, employees and suppliers
• Economics: profit, sales, company/brand value, market share
• Social opportunities: cost benefit analysis and social RoI
The FTSE4Good Index also offers in its criteria a list of elements that can be measured with regard to ethical behaviour.

And the lists go on.

The key point in all of this is that ethics should not be viewed as intangible, a ‘nice but not need to have’, or a CSR tick box. Ethics are a real and measurable part of doing business today.

So if you are an advocate of making the effort to clarify, define and enshrine ethics in your organisation, then you need to also ensure you include some metrics. Only then can you truly realise the value of ethics. And equally as important, only then can you really bring the board and management with you.

Walking the ethical talk - step by step

2010-10-01T10:01:00.000-07:00

Too often ethics are seen only in the context of the ubiquitous green policies, community programmes and CSR report. And while these are ethical issues, it is often the smaller actions of an organisation that speak ethical volumes.

Consider the measurements that ethical indexes such as the Swiss Covalence Ethical Quotation System and Ethisphere.com use to rate companies: consumer communication, dealing with complaints, distribution and marketing. Because it is the everyday implementation of these areas that show a brand to be walking the talk… or not…

For example:
Is it ethical if an airline charges obligatory extras that the consumer is only made aware of when they’re half way through the purchasing process?

Is it ethical that a food label can carry unsubstantiated health claims, or nutritional information for “portion” sizes that do not equate to likely product consumption - the 200ml kids smoothie label that cites a 100ml portion and the King size chocolate bar or soft drink that cites a portion as being half the product.

Is it ethical for a restaurant or hotel to claim it is “family friendly” when the catering and the pricing is anything but?

Ethics can be widely and unconsciously disregarded in the smallest of ways. But the accumulative effect of these apparently minor misdemeanours can be far reaching.

Today’s consumers want to feel good about the choices they make. They may have roomier purses but they also have time to consider how they spend their reduced disposable income. And it is not so much the price but the value and values that that price and the product infer that concerns consumers.

So brands that want to engage with today’s consumers need to get their values in order and their ethics in line.

Schools - the final marketing frontier

2010-09-02T07:44:00.000-07:00

It’s back to school and traffic is the least of parents’ worries. Even where there are no school fees there’s still all manner of paraphernalia to cost, including the ongoing outlay of requests from the school for support, fundraising events, etc.

And whilst the government claims intellectual capacity can overthrow recessionary adversity, it ironically hampers the source of that intellect – our education system – through ongoing cutbacks. The result is that school principals focus on frugal efficiency, and parents are increasingly asked to supplement depleting resources.

But couldn’t the private sector help? And indeed doesn’t the private sector have a duty to look after its future customers and employees, enact its corporate citizenship, and plug this financial gap?

I am not suggesting a ‘free for all’ invite to companies to take marketing advantage of the situation. Because in the absence of formal guidelines, what’s to stop a company offering schools much needed resources in return for blatant PR, branding, and the ubiquitous proofs of purchase.

But just as an organisation’s corporate compassion should influence its values and activities, so too its ethical position should drive how such activities are implemented. By this I mean due consideration should be given to all parties concerned, identifying and protecting each group’s vulnerability. Activities should be based on mutual respect and trust. And most importantly, the motivation and metrics of the activities should be objectively reviewed and clearly defined… and put in writing.

There may be no formal guidelines to commercial activities in schools. But there are plenty of ideas out there (from which my own freely available guidelines are drawn – http://www.sheenahorgan.com/).

So companies cannot be excused for acting as if its open marketing season in schools. But nor too should they be closed to the many mutual benefits of considering a school programme.

Are your ethics hunky dory?

2010-08-25T11:28:00.000-07:00

The highest unprompted recall for an outdoor poster campaign since 2001 went to Hunky Dory. No prizes as to why. But for me the ‘rugby’ posters illustrate an ethical marketing conundrum:

“Just because you can, does it mean you should?”

As a creative execution, the campaign didn’t break any regulations. As a marketing proposition, assuming the brief was to gain attention and male interest, then it was bang on. Media coverage was widespread. And recall was obviously great. So all this recognition makes it worthwhile, yes?

Well, no.

As a marketer I acknowledge the campaign’s success. But as a punter, I hated passing the posters that were irresponsibly close to my local schools, so I cannot reconcile the ethics. Nor evidently could the hundreds of complainants to the ASAI. And from a business perspective, that’s a concern:

Because unless the brand is bought solely by males over a certain age, then the campaign will inevitably damage its goodwill and loyalty. And I’d have thought that in the medium term, the homogeneity of the crisp market should preclude excessive audience alienation as a business strategy.

The published defence of the campaign by the manufacturer may have been that it was “fun”, but that begs the question: “at whose expense?”

There are many ways for a company and individual to examine the ethics of their actions, but the most simple and appropriate here is this:

“Can you justify your ad campaign to your 12 year old daughter or niece?”

Brand marketing needs to employ ethical common sense. “Can” does not mean “should”. And recall does not necessarily mean reward. Brands need to go beyond even the spirit of the law as opposed to following just the letter.

And ultimately, brands need to be cognisant of the ethical implications of their actions, because in consumers’ minds, they matter.

Collective Responsibility

2010-08-11T07:55:00.000-07:00

Ask yourself: “What do you or your organisation do when a social issue like obesity or marketing to children, is raised?” The typical knee jerk reaction is to point the finger: At other brands; at industry; at parents; at schools; at politicians; at anyone other than yourself.

If ethics is about exercising good judgement for the greater good, then it follows that if we all act responsibly then this collective responsibility will generate behaviour and actions that address issues such as these.

If there is something – however small – that an organisation, brand or individual can do, then it is our civic duty to do so. Passing the buck is not acceptable. And ignorance, in this multi media age, is not excusable.

Being responsible is more than a CSR page in the annual report. And more than donating to charity. It is about questioning your morals and values, and embedding them in your actions. For a business, that also means immersing your supply chain in these values. And codifying these so that your staff actually know what is deemed ethically appropriate for the business.

For an individual, it’s about retaining your own inherent morals and ethics, even and especially at work. Because individual decisions can be employer-focused and still ethically sound. And where they’re not, the organisation must address this.

Whatever way you look at it, acting responsibly is ultimately about doing good. And in times of recession and consumer disillusionment, doing good, is now good for business too.

So the bottom line is… the bottom line. Because no man is an island. Even in Ireland.

Ethics in a recession – an impractical ideal?

2010-08-07T07:57:00.000-07:00

Let’s be blunt here, and start the way I hope (these blogs) to continue:

In the minds of most Irish consumers, it’s the unethical activities of business and politicians that has created this current recession.

It therefore follows that consumers are cynical about business and brands’ activities, intentions and marketing. So whilst the consumer movement towards ethics has been growing steadily over the years, the recession has actually been a catalyst to push this issue forward.

Brands therefore need to re-engage with consumers with a new and appropriate message. Messages that evoke values like transparency, honesty, respect, fairness, citizenship and accountability will resonate with this disillusioned audience.

Because it is a modern day truism that "doing good is good for business". The brands that can embed ethically-based values and conduct their business responsibly will reap the rewards that ethical behaviour sows: customer loyalty and lower attrition rates; employee commitment and greater productivity; shareholder interest; reputation capital and competitive advantage.

Every brand and business has the ability to be more responsible, what they have lacked this far is the appetite. But with increasing stakeholder power, and consumer willingness to act according to their conscience (think Fairtrade, organic and green) ethics is not an ideal but a reality that should be on every brand’s agenda.