Social responsibility and ethics in marketing

Social Responsibility and Ethics in Marketing

Over the last several years, a wide variety of companies have been practicing social responsibility. This is when they are engaging in actions that will give something back to the community. In the tobacco industry, their track record has been mixed. As, some firms will become involved in socially responsible activities, while others will focus on business as usual. This is significant, because it is showing how the sector has a mixed track record. To fully understand the overall focus of social responsibility inside the industry requires examining the approach taken by two different corporations. This will be accomplished by focusing on one that is practicing high ethical standards and another that is not. At which point, we will concentrate on: how the unethical company could learn from the ethical one, the way media channels are being utilized by both corporations to promote the best interests of everyone, if these actions are sustainable and the impact their activities can have on the brand image along with profitability of the company. Once this takes place, it will identify what firms are specifically utilizing social responsibility in regards to the products they are selling.

A transformation has occurred recently in regulations surrounding cigarette labeling with, the federal government requiring these companies to issue graphic warning labels on their packing starting in 2012. Under this new program, the firms will be required to post pictures of the effects that smoking can have on someone such as: images of black lungs or the damage it can cause to the mouth of an individual. However, a number of different companies have sued to try to prevent implementation of these new laws based on the fact that it interferes with freedom of speech. The most notable include: RJ Reynolds, Commonwealth Brands, Liggett Group and Santa Fe National Brands. This is significant, because these companies that are involved in this litigation are a sign of some of the more unethical firms inside the industry. ("New U.S. Labeling Requirements," 2011)

Two firms that will be examined are Philip Morris (which has been embracing ethical standards) and RJ Reynolds (who has been utilizing unethical practices). As far as Philip Morris is concerned, they have been focused one improving their overall amounts of social responsibility over the last several years in a number of different areas. A few of the most notable include: reducing usage in minors, focusing on cessation efforts, investing in local communities and decreasing their environmental impact. (Chandley, 2010) In the case of RJ Reynolds, they have become involved in very little social responsibility. This is because, they consider these regulations to be a burden with them claiming that the sector is the most regulated in the industry. As a result, RJ Reynolds could learn from Philip Morris by implementing programs to reduce the number of minors using their products and promoting efforts to help people quit. ("Law and Taxes," 2011)

How is the ethical company using different media channels to promote their good deeds? Are they sincere?

As far as Philip Morris is concerned, they are utilizing: the television, radio, print advertising and the Internet to promote their different socially responsible activities. In this aspect, the company is sincere based on the total amounts of programs that are available While, RJ Reynolds is only using the Internet to: highlight the dangers of their products. This corporation is not sincere, due to the fact that they are only disclosing this on their website and they have no other programs to help different communities. ("Law and Taxes," 2011) (Chandley, 2010)

Are their actions sustainable, or do you think their efforts are short lived?

The actions of Philip Morris are sustainable. This is because they established these different programs to help a wide variety of people over the course of many years. While, RJ Reynolds is focused on short lived efforts, based on pressure they are feeling from regulators. ("Law and Taxes," 2011) (Chandley, 2010)