TOYOTA ETHICS

Toyota Ethics



Toyota Ethics

Introduction

Marketing ethics has developed in the context of business ethics that reflects the interests of various stakeholders in the exchange process. Baumhart (1961) and Tzalikis and Fritzsche (1989) suggest that the moral issues in marketing are particularly important as marketing is expected to identify, anticipate and satisfy customer requirements profitably, thus creating and sustaining the interface between consumer preferences and companies' market aspirations. Some of the problems in achieving a general consensus on ethics in marketing stem from the lack of uniform philosophical arguments of what is “good” and “ethical” and whether “good” and “ethical” have identical meaning.

Kant's (1788) views on ethics are utilitarian and deontological based on reason, intention and duty. According to him duties cannot be associated with self-interest expressed in expected pay-offs or rewards. Thus companies should exist to satisfy the needs of the society and firms have a duty, a moral obligation to deliver benefits to the society. Such an argument places organisational gains as a function of the social wealth and development they create and the consumer satisfaction they deliver. Consequently the social cause is paramount in a company's conduct. Taking Kant's ethical concept as a reference point it can be argued that it pays off for companies to appear ethical; their expectations of increased sales, market share and profitability to appear as motivated by objectives other than self-interest (Yeo, 1988). Such an approach can bring higher pay-offs for a firm because consumers will perceive its operations as ethical. Therefore, if companies appear to be ethical following ethical codes and norms regulating their self-interest they will (hopefully) be rewarded by the consumers. The real issue is whether companies want to appear ethical or truly commit to a marketing behaviour that will place consumer and social welfare before their self-interest.

John Mill's ideas on ethics (Mill, 1998) are utilitarian based on the consequences of action indicating that business ethics should maximize the total amount of pleasure in the world and minimise the total amount of pain thus augmenting the scope of beneficiaries. Mill's understanding of ethics is intrinsically associated with the common “good” rather than a company's self-interest. According to Nantel and Weeks (1996) of all functional business areas marketing management represents the most disputed area in terms of utilitarian ethics. They argue that the implementation of ethics in marketing is a paradox in itself as the definition of marketing, which is predominantly utilitarian, provides marketing managers with a justification for ethical conduct when they ensure that the consequences of their behaviour are moral. However, the utilitarian views do not always result in ethical marketing conduct. Mill's notion questions whether marketing activities are to be limited to an increase in the market share or profitability of a single company, should they deliver benefits to a greater number of people not involved in a company's decision-making processes. The problem is that the common “good” has various interpretations and its scope is vague if at all explicit. Should the common “good” be applied to a target ...