Marketers are aware that they are promoting socially controversial products, if they are indeed. If this should be seen in the light of irresponsibility, then, by all means, these marketers are irresponsible and unethical in their trade. It is, therefore, imbued upon business marketing to know better and not let the bad prosper.
On the other hand, the underlying principle of business is profit. Any business is constructed on the foundation of the so-called bottom line. In the old and traditional business models, such as the ones that Milton Friedman, a stalwart figure in economics, stood for, it is generally believed that the responsibility of business is to increase its profits for the benefit of its stockholders. This is the old view of management ethics.
Therefore, the marketer is beholden, first and foremost, to the corporation that he serves and that expects him to sell the product, no matter how controversial.
The concept of socially responsible business is of later vintage. Corporate culture has grown in the last few decades to now be mature enough to realize that business is beholden to stakeholders of the entire value chain, not just to its stockholders.
Anything destructive or life-threatening is automatically a fundamental ethical consideration. The ‘life’ in the concept of life-threatening includes threats other than to life and limb alone. Contributory to the destruction or demise of society or the environment can also be considered life-threatening.
So, anything that impinges on the basic human rights of men may be considered fundamental ethical considerations in business marketing. Human rights are the most fundamental of human needs. Therefore, any product or service offering that runs against the very principles of these fundamental human rights is fundamentally unethical in a society of men where life, peace, and wellbeing are premium considerations.
