Can innocent guilt exist?

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.

Defining ethics (and arguing semantics)

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.