Marketing’s new myopia: Expanding the social responsibilities of marketing managers

Abstract

The view of advocates who see corporate social responsibility as a transformative tool by which marketers can unilaterally define the well-being of consumers is criticized by Gaski (AMS Review, 2022) for failing to acknowledge marketers’ legal and ethical responsibilities as agents of ownership and on the basis that they are not qualified to determine what is socially responsible. These criticisms are explored to suggest that social responsibility is a triadic construct that incorporates provider, user, and societal well-being. It is further suggested that advocates of social responsibility have not distinguished the construct from social marketing. Historically, it is demonstrated that concern for consumer well-being is not a new transformative initiative for marketers as such concerns have appeared in the marketing literature for more than a century. It is suggested that social responsibility is a process that is appropriately used as a strategic option by marketers as a potential means to enhance the well-being of providers, users, and society and that the government is the appropriate arbitrator should disagreements as to what is socially responsible arise. Confusion as to the conceptualization and use of social responsibility is attributed to a growing myopic drift towards a behavioral focus among marketing faculty, in marketing Ph.D. programs, and in the marketing literature. Suggestions for changes are identified.