This suggests that the outcome from tobacco advertisement are possibly not as substantial as Hastings and Aitkens (1995) claims. This suggests that from a utilitarian approach the consequences of tobacco advertisement may not recruit new smokers but actually convert existing smokers to choose quality brands over cheaper alternatives. This may point toward tobacco advertising as being ethical as it encourages existing smokers to choose quality products. A deontological approach (depending upon the values of the individual) is conflicted, it may view smoking as wrong but not wish to silence the tobacco company’s freedom of speech.
Cavalier (2002) defines this as ‘a normative ethical theory that places the locus of right and wrong solely on the consequences of choosing one action/policy over other actions/policies. As such, it moves beyond the scope of one's own interests and takes into account the interests of others”. This suggests that management may justify a decision as ethical if the net positives are greater than net negatives. Meaning that decisions may be justified as ethical if they illicit the largest demographic to be happy with the decision even if lethal. Opposing this Nantel & Weeks (1996) suggest a deontological ethics (largely based upon works of Emmanuel Kant) which considers the manner to which an act is performed as opposed to the consequences of it. This approach is much more closely affiliated with values, where no reprehensible actions can be considered ethical regardless of potential positive outcomes. Therefore an action is either ethical or unethical regardless of the percentage of the demographic are satisfied with the outcome.
A perfect illustration of deontological ethics would be to state that Robin Hoods ‘rob the rich to feed the poor’ would not be considered ethical as from a deontological perspective stealing is always unethical regardless of motivation.
A deontological perspective would also take into account the tobacco organisations freedom of speech. To take away this freedom can be considered unethical depending upon the virtues of the individual.
One study into tobacco advertisement suggested only ‘42 per cent supported banning the tobacco industry’s use of sport sponsorship to promote their products’ (McDaniel & Mason., 1999). This suggests that the decision was taken to ban tobacco advertisement was based along a deontological ethics system. Being as the majority of the sample were not opposed to banning advertisement to support a utilitarian approach (though it must be recognised that the sample were of 1007 US adults which may not represent cultural differences of virtues or be a significant sized sample to gain any genuine statistical significance).
Petrick & Quinn (1997) further expand upon business ethics philosophies, proposing that ethical theories can be plotted within a map with ideas being placed within 4 philosophical approaches. With Virtue ethics and ethical learning regarded as individual processes supplementing the fixed or institutional ethical views of deontological or teleological (utilitarian) ethical views.
Dworkin (1977) defines the two elements of the horizontal axis, Policy is defined as an approach that sets a goal to be reached, generally towards economic, political or social improvements. Where as principal in contrast may not advance economic, political or social situations but is a requirement for fairness, justice or some other dimension of morality (Fisher & Lovell., 2006). Subsequently ethical theories to the left of the map fall into the deontological classification, where as utilitarian fall to the right. However Petrick & Quins (1997) model possesses 2 further dimensions along a vertical axis. The individual processes at the top of the axis focuses on an individual’s responsibility as themselves or within a group to acquire ethical judgement or self knowledge. Therefore ethical decision making is not fixed, but open to interpretation by an individual. Conversely the lower half of the axis possesses are fixed, and independent to individual decision making, however still govern our principals and ethical decision making.
Much like deontological ethics virtue ethics disregard consequences within decision making. However they are not fixed. Fisher & Lovell (2006) define virtues as ‘personal qualities that provide the basis for the individual to lead a good, noble or happy life’ p101. Therefore virtues are personal, individual and unique to the person themselves. It is the individuals own unique standpoint that will dictate whether an action is ethical.
Fisher & Lovell (2006) suggest that Ethical learning or ethical egotism is a ‘process of becoming aware of one’s ethical potential’ p120. However it differs from virtue ethics as it is based upon the consequences of any ethical decisions. Therefore decisions should be based upon whether the consequence is the individuals own happiness. Subsequently ethical decisions should not self sacrifice the individuals own happiness over another’s.
The next part of this essay will consider ethical Arguments of the tobacco advertisement analysed from a perspective of the above ethical philosophies. Perhaps the most common/reoccurring ethical argument concerned with tobacco advertisement banning is the potential allure to young non smokers and children (Townsend 2000, Cornwell and Maignan 1998, Johnson 2000). Advertising and gaining loyalty of this market demographic is important to most business organisations for the longevity of their business and this is no different to the tobacco industry. Alpert et al (2008) suggests that greater exposure of youth to tobacco advertising correlates with an increased likelihood that they will start smoking cigarettes and use other tobacco products. From a utilitarian or consequential perspective tobacco advertising to young non smokers is not ethical. This is because the net consequence would be more smokers and the attributing detrimental health issues that smoking may illicit. A deontological perspective is not as clear, this is because it is based upon virtue. Though it is clear that most virtuous people consider smoking to be bad (because of the negative health aspects) this was not always the case.
Individual advertisements must also be taken into account when constructing ethical views of advertisements as to whether the advertisements are misleading or manipulative. This is because many smokers block the tiny air vent holes with their fingers or lips, thereby greatly increasing the yields of tar and nicotine they inhale when compared to the smoking machine determined yields cited in advertising and on packs, cigarette advertising is in this respect arguably misleading. Fill (2009) states that it is a general legal requirement to tell the truth throughout any marketing communication, however there is plenty of scope to which aspects of the truth are to be presented within the advertisement. Looking back to Townsend (2000) example of 18year olds smoking within an advertisement with big smiles. From a utilitarian perspective this is not ethical because it is propaganda that encourages children to smoke. The argument that tobacco advertising provides information is thus largely bankrupt when examined against actual practice
Another aspect that must be considered from a consequential perspective is the loss of tax revenue from tobacco sales. As Crompton (1993) suggests while western governments are constraining tobacco companies promotional activities whilst enjoying financial benefits from the tobacco industry. Hoek & Sparks (2000) supports this, suggesting that though it may be desirable from a social perspective to implement total advertisement bans of tobacco products, it would require a significant sacrifice of a countries economic well being. The revenue created from tax on tobacco is then invested within the NHS, schools e.g. From a utilitarian perspective the consequences of smoking are what most virtuous people would consider to be ‘good’. It is also important to consider the economic effects upon the countries where tobacco is actually grown, with lesser developed countries such as Brazil and Pakistan amongst the top ten manufacturers (Workman, 2006) If tobacco sales were to fall as a result of less advertisement of tobacco products it is arguable from a consequential perspective that banning tobacco advertisement is actually not ethical due to the economical damage it would cause to the country in the long term.
Through the evidence given and the range of arguments this essay outlines the positives and negatives in association with the advertisement of tobacco products. What is perhaps most significant is whether tobacco advertisement encourages the young or non smokers to smoke as from both utilitarian and deontological perspectives this is unethical. Patient Uk states About 106,000 people in the UK die each year due to smoking. Smoking-related deaths are mainly due to cancers, COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and heart disease,
other evidence backs this up. Conflicting arguments however, would suggest that the aim and outcome of tobacco advertisement is to convert existing smokers to choose higher quality brands. This is not the only argument for pro-campaigners of tobacco advertisement such as the substantial economical benefits. Another possible argument for the advertisement of tobacco is that other non healthy products (alcohol, unhealthy foods e.g.) marketing regulations are considerably less stringent. But research does find smoking to be typically harder to quit than drinking alcohol and even, some say, than doing drugs. The harm does depends a lot on how heavy the use is and for how long. But as drinking is restricted to certain times and occasions often weekends and evenings a much stronger addiction is produced with smoking than a drinking habit. Also, there are many kinds of harm besides the damage that the user does to his or her own body such as passive smoking. From a utilitarian or deontological perspective advertising products such as these possess a similar or worse ethical position than tobacco. Such a range of arguments leaves the ethical position of tobacco advertising down to a virtue ethics standpoint, as it can be interpreted either way depending upon the values of each country or consumer in taking the information.
References
:
Alpert, H R, Koh, H K & Gregory, G N (2008) After The Master Settlement Agreement: Targeting And Exposure Of Youth To Magazine Tobacco Advertising. Health Affairs Vol. 27 Issue 6,
Beauchamp, T.L. (1980), “Ethical theory and its application to business”, in
Beauchamp, T.L. and Bowie, N.E. (Eds), Ethical Theory and Business, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Cornwell, T.B (1997), "Worldwide circumvention of advertising restrictions in the tobacco industry: the sponsorship loophole", 1997 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising
Crompton, J (1993), "Sponsorship of sport by tobacco and alcohol companies: a review of the issues", Journal of Sport and Social Issues, Vol. 17 pp.148-67.
Dworkin, R (1977) Taking Rights Seriously, London, Duckworth
Economics and Operational Research Division (EORD) (1992), Effects of Tobacco Advertising on Tobacco Consumption, Department of Health, London
Fill, C (2009) Marketing Communications: Interactivity, Communities and Content. Pearson Education UK
Fisher, C & Lovell, A (2006) Business Ethics and Values, Individual, Corporate and International Perspectives.. Pearson Education Ltd. London
Hastings, G B & Aitken, P P (1995) Tobacco advertising and childrens smoking: a review of the evidence. European Journal of Marketing, vol 20 iss 11 p 6-17
Hoek, J & Sparks, R (2000) Tobacco Promotion Restrictions- An international regulatory impasse? International Marketing Review Vol 17, Issue 3
Johnson, E B (2000) Tobacco & Public Policy in the USA. Reference Service Review. Vol 103 Issue 5
Jones, S C & Rossiter, J D (2008) Young adults perceptions of smoking actors. Health Education. Volume 108 Issue 6.
Marlin, R (2003) Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion. Broadview Press Ltd. Canada.
McDaniel, S R & Mason, D S (1999) An exploratory study of influences on public opinion toward alcohol and tobacco sponsorship of sporting events. Journal of Services Marketing. Volume 13 Issue 6
Nantel, J & Weeks W A (1996) Marketing ethics: is there more to it than the utilitarian approach?
Volume: 30 1996
Nisberg, J.N. (1988), The Random House Handbook of Business Terms, Random House, New York, NY.,
Petrick, J A & Quinn, J F (1997) Management Ethics, Integrity at Work, London, Sage.
Sibbald, B. (1999b). New group sets sights on herbal medicine. Canadian Medical Association Journal,
161, 583.
Tkach, V (1998), "Eastern Europeans fall for appeal of Western cigarettes", Financial Times
Townsend, A (2000) Misplaced Marketing – Dangers for misplaced tobacco marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing. Vol 17 issue 2 p 103-105.
White, J, Bandura, A & Bero, L (2009) Moral Disengagement in the Corporate World. Accountability in Research: Policies & Quality Assurance; Jan 2009, Vol 16 Issue 1, P41-74
