MKTG90049 · Marketing, Society and Sustainability
Ethics in Marketing
Week 2 covers the ethical responsibilities of marketers: moral muteness and moral myopia, the ethical-decision-making chain, the seven ethical theories (utilitarian, Kantian, rights, justice, feminist/care, virtue, postmodern), and Chandy, Johar, Moorman & Roberts's (2021) Better Marketing for a Better World 2×2 matrix.
This is a recurring exam theme: a long-answer question asks you to argue for or against a marketing practice using at least two or three ethical theories, and the BMBW matrix is a reusable lens for classifying any campaign as win-win, win-lose, lose-win or lose-lose.
What this chapter covers
- 01Moral muteness (unwilling to discuss ethics) vs moral myopia (unable to see ethical issues) — Drumwright & Murphy
- 02Ethical decision-making chain: recognise moral issue → make moral judgement → establish moral intent → engage in moral behaviour
- 03The pluralistic view: no single ethical theory is the whole truth of a dilemma
- 04The seven ethical theories — core idea, guiding question and limitation for each
- 05Five components of ethical marketing: honesty, transparency, promise-keeping, empathy, sustainability commitment
- 06Why be ethical: because it is morally right and because it is good business
- 07Better Marketing for a Better World (Chandy et al. 2021): the good-for-firm × good-for-world 2×2 (win-win, win-lose, lose-win, lose-lose)
Long answer: apply ethical theories to buy-now-pay-later marketing to students
- +4Frame the dilemma (about 4 marks). Name the practice and the tension: BNPL widens access to goods (a benefit) but can normalise debt among low-income young consumers who may not detect the persuasive intent (a harm). Flag moral muteness/myopia as why firms avoid naming the issue.
- +6Utilitarian analysis (about 6 marks). Weigh aggregate costs and benefits: convenience and access for many vs financial harm, stress and default for a vulnerable minority. Note the limitation — the greatest-good calculus can disregard the harmed minority.
- +6Kantian / duty and rights analysis (about 6 marks). Ask 'what if every lender did this?' and whether students are treated merely as a means to revenue. Invoke the right to fair communication and to not be exploited when persuasive intent is undetectable.
- +6A third theory — justice or ethics of care (about 6 marks). Justice: who bears the cost (indebted students) and who reaps the benefit (the lender)? Is that distribution fair? Or ethics of care: the special obligation toward a dependent, less-powerful group.
- +6Synthesise + BMBW placement + position (about 6 marks). Land a reasoned stance acknowledging trade-offs, then place unrestrained BNPL-to-students in the win-lose quadrant (good for firm, bad for world) and recommend the win-win path (e.g. transparency, affordability checks). Keep to ~550 words.
Key terms
- Moral muteness vs moral myopia
- Two ways marketers dodge ethics (Drumwright & Murphy 2004): moral muteness is being unwilling to acknowledge or discuss ethical problems; moral myopia is being unable to see the ethical issues clearly in the first place.
- Ethical decision-making chain
- A four-stage model: recognise the moral issue → make a moral judgement → establish moral intent → engage in moral behaviour. Extended versions add societal, organisational, stakeholder and individual moderators.
- Utilitarianism
- A consequentialist theory: an action is right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number (cost-benefit). Guiding question: will we be better or worse off overall? Limitation: hard to measure social costs, and the majority can override a minority's rights.
- Kantian / deontological ethics
- Duty-based ethics: act on rules you could will to be universal, and never treat people merely as a means to an end, regardless of consequences. Guiding question: what if everybody did this? Limitation: rigid, and neglects consequences and emotion.
- Better Marketing for a Better World (BMBW) matrix
- Chandy, Johar, Moorman & Roberts (2021): a 2×2 of good-for-the-world (no/yes) × good-for-the-firm (no/yes), giving four cells — lose-lose, lose-win (good for world, bad for firm), win-lose (good for firm, bad for world) and win-win (good for both) — used to classify marketing actions.
- Five components of ethical marketing
- Honesty (no manipulation or exaggeration), transparency (openness about operations), promise-keeping (genuine intent to deliver), empathy (deep understanding of customers' needs), and sustainability commitment (public, environmental and social wellbeing).
Ethics in Marketing FAQ
What is the difference between moral muteness and moral myopia?
Moral myopia is a problem of vision — the marketer cannot clearly see that there is an ethical issue at all. Moral muteness is a problem of voice — the marketer may sense an issue but is unwilling to name or discuss it, often because ethics talk feels awkward or bad for business. Drumwright & Murphy (2004) found both are common; the exam likes you to use them to explain why firms avoid confronting a practice's harms.
How many ethical theories should I use in an exam answer?
For a long-answer 'argue a position' question the subject expects at least two or three of the seven theories, each applied genuinely (state the core idea, the guiding question, and ideally the limitation) rather than just named. A strong answer runs the dilemma through, say, utilitarian, Kantian and justice lenses, weighs them, and reaches a defended position. Breadth plus honest weighing scores better than a single forceful opinion.
Why should marketers be ethical if it costs the firm money?
The subject gives two rationales. First, because it is morally right: firms are powerful, cause social and environmental effects, and rely on many stakeholders, not just shareholders. Second, because it is good business: there are rewards for good conduct and penalties and reputational risk for bad conduct ('being good is good for business'). The Better Marketing for a Better World matrix formalises this by looking for win-win actions that benefit both the firm and the world.
Can AI help me with marketing ethics in MKTG90049?
Yes, as a study aid. Sia can drill the seven theories, help you structure a theory-by-theory long answer, and check that you have named each theory's limitation. Give it a dilemma and ask it to walk through the ethical-decision chain and the BMBW placement step by step. It does not write your graded answer, and University of Melbourne academic-integrity rules apply.
Exam move
Build a one-page grid of the seven ethical theories with three columns each — core idea, guiding question, key limitation — and rehearse it closed-book, because a long-answer question will ask you to run a dilemma through several. Practise the exam move: take a contested marketing practice, frame the dilemma (naming moral muteness/myopia), apply three distinct theories with their limitations, then synthesise a defended position and place it in the BMBW matrix. Rotate dilemmas (junk food, gambling ads, ultra-fast fashion influencers) so you can transfer the toolkit. Remember the marker rewards breadth and honest weighing, not a strong opinion. When a theory is fuzzy, ask Sia to contrast it with a neighbouring one and set a fresh dilemma; it teaches the method and never does your graded work. Confirm assessment details on Canvas.
Working through Ethics in Marketing in MKTG90049? Sia is AskSia’s AI Marketing tutor — ask any MKTG90049 Ethics in Marketing question and get a clear, step-by-step explanation grounded in how MKTG90049 is taught and assessed. Read this chapter free, then take your hardest questions to Sia.
