The Marketing Leaders - Should marketers of sweets, crisps and other junk food be pilloried for creating ‘generation fat’?

The Marketing Leaders goes to Japan just as the goose is getting fat to talk about a consumer angle of corporate governance, and whether companies should be allowed to make foods that make Britain’s children ‘the plumpest in Europe’.

Britain's children are the plumpest in Europe and their diet has become a major cause of concern. Now leading food companies are promising self-restraint - for fear of legislation and a public backlash - and promising to make their marketing to children more responsible. Some are also changing their recipes to reduce life-shortening ingredients.

The marketing profession is at least partly responsible for this mess. It has long celebrated large-scale FMCG marketers, and in particular the purveyors of sweets and crisps, as exemplars of marketing impact. Should we really applaud their ability to literally shove more junk down kids' throats? Or should marketers adopt a code of ethics that holds professionals accountable for their methods and results?

A code of ethics should require marketers to acknowledge the potential harm of their activities and require them to measure and mitigate business side-effects. Such a code would require professionals to use a formal framework for impact evaluation, measurement and control, in the way that the International Organization for Standardization requires organisations to behave in order to be certified under ISO schemes for quality and environmental management. It would apply equally to marketers of foodstuffs and healthcare, and in all other industries.

As a publisher I recently launched the book "Responsibility in World Business: Managing Harmful Side-effects of Corporate Activity". A core argument in the book is that companies (and thus their marketers) should be aware of - and accountable for - the negative impact of their work.

The book proposes a model for measuring and addressing these impacts, called the 'Principle of Double Effect' (PDE). The framework reflects 2,000 years of argument and the authors note that it "can be used as a tool for analysis of actions that have already taken place and as a prerequisite for moral judgement".

The PDE framework proposes

...... that companies deal with the negative side effects of their activities - while creating sustainable value for their stakeholders - by meeting the following tests:

1. Identify potential negative side-effects by consulting affected parties (e.g. children, parents, healthcare providers), and conduct risk-assessment before and during operations. In other words, understand kids' diets, not just their purchasing patterns, trigger points, and available pocket money.

2. Avoid using side-effects as a way to achieve corporate objectives. For FMCG marketers this might mean avoiding higher consumption for the sake of higher sales, and instead meet a broader range of consumers' needs: instead of selling more crisps to the same kids, get a greater share of their pocket money through other, healthy foodstuffs. Or if you are product-driven, try flogging the crisps to new markets.

3. Identify negative side-effects that can be justified and proportionate, and necessary to achieve legitimate business objectives. Here is the marketer's chance to argue back: exactly what side-effects are acceptable, and why? For example, a certain level of packaging waste might be excusable for the sake of hygiene, but not simply for point-of-sales impact.

4. Take action to prevent or minimize negative side-effects. You know it is happening: are you doing anything to stop it? Recent efforts by food companies to limit advertising and modify their recipes are evidence of this in action, albeit in response to public pressure.

5. Determine if the negative side-effects that occur are inescapable. Is it impossible to achieve the company's legitimate objectives with fewer or no side-effects? The key question here is the legitimacy of the company's objectives. Ask your PR department: would it be easier to limit or eliminate the side-effects, or to defend your company's 'legitimate' business interests? If you are selling non-essential food items you might find the argument hard to win.

This framework acknowledges that it is unacceptable for companies to maximise their profits regardless of the broader costs to society. Instead, companies need to take account of the interests of all stakeholders and respond accordingly.

It would be a useful starting point for a comprehensive code of ethics for the marketing profession; a code that is well overdue.

By Scott McQuade MCIM
Head of United Nations University Press, Tokyo, Japan
And Publications Officer, United Nations University

The book "Responsibility in World Business: Managing Harmful Side-effects of Corporate Activity" by Lene Bomann-Larsen and Oddny Wiggen is available from UNU Press: http://www.unu.edu/unupress



		Should marketers of sweets, crisps and other junk food be pilloried for creating ‘generation fat’?
		> Articles (back to magazine)