www.ijmit.

com International Journal of Management & Information Technology

ISSN: 2278-5612 Volume 3, No 1, January, 2013

Ethical Brand Image & Corporate Goodwill:

Issues & Challenges
Dr. Jaskaran Singh Dhillon, Director
Swift Institute of Management and Computer Science
Swift Technical Campus, Rajpura
Patiala, Punjab, India

ABSTRACT life: production and consumption, food and

clothing, personality and lifestyle; and from pop
This paper explores the concept of ethical culture to politics. Branding is no longer just
branding and its link to corporate goodwill. about adding value to a product; branding
Brands have traditionally been studied only as an represents and promotes lifestyles and brands
economic construct. Brands, as a social construct, themselves become a kind of culture. In the words
have not yet been fully understood due to the lack of Hazel Kahan (quoted in Hall, 1999), brands are
of research. A corporate brand is a vital part of the now gunning for a share of consumers’ inner
corporate goodwill management. An ethical brand lives, their values, their beliefs, their politics; yes,
enhances the firm’s goodwill; such goodwill their souls. The impact of brands and branding is
reinforces the brand in turn. On the other hand, far beyond the field of marketing and advertising.
any unethical behaviour will severely damage or Branding is a social construct as well as an
even destroy the total intangible asset as economic construct. As an economic construct,
evidenced by the recent high profile corporate brands have been studied from both marketing and
scandals. Ethical branding could provide the financial perspectives. As a social construct,
company with a differential advantage as a brands have not yet been fully understood owing
growing number of consumers become more to the dearth of academic research in this area.
ethically conscious. Advertising is probably the most visible element
of marketing but branding is at the centre of any
KEYWORDS: Brand Image, Ethics, Firms marketing communications. Most problems with
Goodwill, Corporate Social Responsibility advertising have their roots in branding strategy.
A notorious example is Benetton’s shocking tactic
1. INTRODUCTION advertising in the 1990s. However, little is known
There has been a growing research interest in the about the impact of branding (not advertising) on
area of business and marketing ethics. Ethics has the stakeholders other than brand owners and
been studied in almost all business issues except users, and about the link between branding and
branding. Not a single academic study has been corporate goodwill. This paper aims to raise the
found on branding ethics after an extensive awareness of ethical issues in corporate branding.
literature search covering the following sources:
three online database (ABI Inform Global, Ebsco
2. WHAT IS ETHICAL
and Infotrac), three journals (Journal of Business BRANDING?
Ethics, Journal of Brand Management and Journal
Brand is a simple but very confused word with
of Product and Brand Management), dozens of
multiple meanings. The American Marketing
books and websites.
Association defines a brand as: a name, term, sign,
Brands may have been in existence for well over a
symbol, or design, or a combination of them,
thousand years. But never has any society before
intended to identify the goods or services of one
seen the power of branding as is witnessed today:
seller or group of sellers and differentiate them
Brands are prevalent in every aspect of human
from those of competitors (Kotler, 2003). A brand

©
Council for Innovative Research 46 | P a g e
www.ijmit.com International Journal of Management & Information Technology
ISSN: 2278-5612 Volume 3, No 1, January, 2013

may have many other meanings depending on the and wrong behaviour in branding decisions. A
role it plays, the value it has and more brand needs to be evaluated not just by the
importantly, to whom it is related. To brand economic or financial criteria but also by the
owners, a brand is mainly a differentiation device: moral ones. An ethical brand should not harm
the living memory and the future of its products public good; instead it should contribute to or help
(Kapferer, 1997). To brand users, a brand may promote public good.
create an emotional bond with them which turns
the brand into an icon. In the most developed role, 3. UNDERSTANDING
brands represent not only the products or services BRANDING OBJECTIVES
a company provides but the firm itself, the brand
is the company and brands become a synonym of With the continuous advancement of technology,
the company’s policy (Goodyear 1996; de most consumer products have become a kind of
Chernatony and McDonald, 2003). A brand is no commodity, i.e. there are fewer and fewer genuine
longer just the interface between the company and and tangible differences between competing
its customers; to whom and to the general public, offers. The Unique Selling Proposition (USP) is
it is the face of the company. no longer valid and being replaced by so called
Branding is a key function in marketing that the Emotional Selling Proposition (Aitchison,
means much more than just giving a product a 1999:42). This provides brand advertisers with a
name. Branding at corporate level is essentially powerful tool to manipulate the consumer’s
about developing and managing the relationship emotion in order to achieve brand differentiation.
between the organisation and its various The conventional wisdom of branding believes
stakeholders as well as the general public. Should that the ultimate aim of branding is to command a
branding be ethical? It might seem that the answer favourable position in the mind of consumers,
is obvious: most companies would answer yes. distinct from competition (Ries and Trout, 1982).
However, it would be more difficult to find a A successful brand is believed to bring its owner
universal agreement on what ethical branding is. great financial value in terms of either higher sales
Ethics refers to moral rules or principles of or premium prices. The ultimate objectives in
behaviour for deciding what is right and wrong. branding can be summarised as follows:
These principles are not always easy to define as • To dominate the market (to reduce or eliminate
a) it is often difficult to distinguish between ethics competition)
and legality; b) ethical values vary between • To increase customer loyalty (by increasing the
individuals and organisations, and between switch cost)
different cultures; and they are changing over • To raise the entry barriers (to fend off potential
time. Ethics is a very complex subject. threat)
Marketing ethics is but a subset of business ethics These branding objectives could be ethically
which itself is a subset of ethics (Martin, 1985). questionable under scrutiny. Whilst there may be
Research on marketing ethics has so far been nothing wrong if one brand succeeds in
confined to general marketing issues, such as dominating the market, it is a different matter if
product safety, pricing, advertising and marketing the brand aims at monopoly with active attempt to
research (Laczniak, 1993; Simith, 1995 and eliminate competition as in the recent case of
Murphy, 1999); little attention has been paid to Microsoft, which was imposed a record €497
branding. No business ethics books have been million fine by the EU for anti-competitive
found to have reference to branding while leading behaviour. As a human activity branding should
branding texts have made no reference to ethics be evaluated from a moral point of view. In the
(Aaker, 1991; Kapferer, 1997; Keller, 1998 and de ruthless competition for market shares moral
Chernatony and McDonald, 2003). A brand may issues are probably the last concern for
be amoral, but there are ethical issues in branding. companies. The paradox is that the more
Ethical branding, as a subset of ethical marketing, successful a brand is in the marketplace, the more
relates to certain moral principles that define right

©
Council for Innovative Research 47 | P a g e
www.ijmit.com International Journal of Management & Information Technology
ISSN: 2278-5612 Volume 3, No 1, January, 2013

likely its branding strategy may become ethically 5. THE MULTIPLE IMAGES
questionable. Consider the following cases:
• Targeting at children as young as five years old OF A BRAND
who are impressionable; A brand owner might want create one single
• Alcoholic soft drink advertising encouraging image for its brand that is positive and consistent.
under-age drinking; In reality a brand may simultaneously hold
• Exaggerating non-existing benefits in a basically multiple images - external versus internal,
commodity product; intended versus perceived and positive to neutral
• False and misleading advertising; to negative, depending on that who interprets
• Promoting self-indulgence and conspicuous these images. Consider the case of Coca Cola.
consumption (e.g. binge drinking and consumer Officially, the world’s most valuable brand worth
debts) of $68.9bn wants to promote itself as the
following: through our actions as local citizens,
4. A VULNERABLE ASSET we strive every day to refresh the marketplace,
The image of a brand can also be affected by non- enrich the workplace, preserve the environment
branding decisions that are made at the marketing and strengthen our communities (cocacola.com).
or business level, for example, sweatshop However, behind this seemingly noble statement,
accusations, animal testing, labour disputes, etc. there is another Coca Cola whose aim, according
Most business decisions that might eventually to its former senior vice chairman, was to
affect the organisation’s brand image are made by encourage as many people as possible to drink as
people other than the brand manager on financial much Coca Cola as possible at the highest
criteria with little consideration for ethical issues. possible price so that the company could make
Whenever anything goes wrong, be it a small even more money (Zyman, 1992). What a sharp
incident or a big crisis, it is the brand that takes contrast between the words and the deeds. It is not
the blame; the brand image and corporate uncommon to find such a great discrepancy in
goodwill are always the victim. Brands became other well-known brands such as Nike and
the mistaken identity in the debate between No McDonalds. Another example is the fashion
Logo and Pro Logo camps (The Economist, retailer French Connection. The firm’s fortune
08/09/2001), as it is not the brand or logo, but the changed when it re-branded itself as FCUK,
bad corporate policies that are responsible for all deliberately provoking outrage through its
the wrongdoings. “Brands are not guilty of social association with the F-word. Is this clever or
and environmental damage – nor are they even a irresponsible branding? As many people in
symbol of unethical working practice marketing still believe that “ethics does not sell”
Corporations are guilty and laws that allow and or that such concerns are outside their
unethical practice are guilty” (anonymous responsibility, managers will continue to face the
comment on brandchannel.com 29/10/2001). dilemma of cost versus conscience. This is
Enron’s downfall was not caused by the branding reflected in a statement made by Enron’s former
but the corrupted top management. A brand CEO Jeffery Skilling who reputedly said my job
simply becomes the easy target or scapegoat for as a businessman is to maximise returns to
corporate misbehaviour. A brand is widely shareholders. It is the government’s job to step in
regarded as the most valuable asset an if the product is dangerous (The Observer,
organisation has. An often-overlooked fact is that 28/07/2002). This has echoed with Friedman’s
it is also the most vulnerable asset as well. A influential yet largely outdated view that the social
brand goodwill established with millions pounds responsibility of business is to increase its profits
of investment over many years could be easily (1970).
damaged or even destroyed overnight. There could also be a gap in the brand images
projected by product and corporate advertising.
Brand communications aimed at one group of

©
Council for Innovative Research 48 | P a g e
www.ijmit.com International Journal of Management & Information Technology
ISSN: 2278-5612 Volume 3, No 1, January, 2013

audience may not be appreciated (or would even symbolising some basic human (moral) values, or
be misinterpreted) by another. There is an inherent is that asking too much?
problem here. It is impossible for a brand with a
single image to appeal to everyone. If a brand 7. CORPORATE BRAND
appeals to one group audience it may also alienate ENTITY
or even offend other groups. Does it matter?
While the primary purpose of product branding is
6. DEFICIENCY IN BRAND to aid sales and profitability, the primary purpose
MODELS of corporate branding is to embody the value
system of the company and to help promote and
The main attention of brand management in the enhance corporate goodwill. Corporate brand
last 20 years has been largely confined to product equity relates to the attitudes and associations that
branding while corporate branding has been wide stakeholders have of a company as opposed
overlooked. This is particularly true in the fast to those of an individual product (Larkin, 2003). A
moving consumer goods sector, and is also brand cannot be separated from the organisational
reflected in the branding models and research. In context in which it was created or is developed
the conventional brand models (Aaker, 1991; and managed (Feldwick, 1996). Thus it can be
Kapferer, 1997 and Keller, 1997), the brand is argued that there is a link between brand values
related to only two types of audiences: brand and an organisation’s corporate culture and/or
owner and brand user. The value of brand equity mission statement. The recent fashion in branding
is defined and measured by its economic is internal branding which believes that if
performance in financial terms. This model, albeit employees fully understand and appreciate their
useful in explaining the so-called brand power, brand they will be better able to provide the
has a number of deficiencies. Firstly, two basic desired brand experience to consumers (Ind, 2001;
elements are missing: legality and ethics, which Kunde and Cunningham, 2002). The brand can’t
form the foundation of brand equity. A good just be a unique selling proposition. It has to be an
brand must be a legal as well as ethical one. Thus “organising principle”, uniting and directing the
brand value needs to be assessed by both financial entire corporation. Employees can’t just do a good
and ethical measures. Secondly, conventional day’s work any more. They have to “live the
brand models focus largely on product brands brand” (Mitchell, 2001). However, this begs the
rather than corporate brands. Brands and branding question: does a brand have the same meaning to
have such a profound impact on the society as the management and employees as it has to the
whole and not just on these people who buy them. buyers? A brand is about the two key
There is a wider public, in addition to relationships: the relationship between the
shareholders and consumers, who may be organisation and its customers, and the
potentially affected by the branding decisions: relationship between the organisation and other
employees, suppliers, and the wider community. stakeholders and general public. The economic
Brands that satisfy one group may affect another basis of a brand is that it should keep its promise
negatively. The impact of branding on these of providing both physical and emotional benefits
stakeholders should also be taken into to its buyers.
consideration. A good brand is said to create Similarly, the social basis of a brand is that it must
financial value for its owner and emotional value stick to its core values: trust, honesty, and
for its users. What does a brand mean to the integrity. Like any other long-term relationship, a
general public? Is it right that the interest of some brand must be developed and maintained on the
stakeholders (brand owners and buyers) always basis of trust. Once the trust is lost or destroyed by
outweigh the interest of other stakeholders? If a any corporate wrongdoing the brand is doomed to
brand is studied in a broader social context, should fail as evidenced by some biggest corporate
it also bring public good to the society by scandals in the USA and Europe. If marketing is,
like some researchers (Vitell and Grove, 1987;

©
Council for Innovative Research 49 | P a g e
www.ijmit.com International Journal of Management & Information Technology
ISSN: 2278-5612 Volume 3, No 1, January, 2013

Dunfee, et al, 1999) believe, the most prone to social investing mutual funds when it went down
unethical behaviour due to its inherent attributes (Kelly, 2002).
then branding must share some of the blame.
9. CAUSE RELATED
8. BRANDING AND MARKETING (CRM):
CORPORATE SOCIAL LATEST FAD.
RESPONSIBILITY (CSR)
The idea behind CRM is that aligning companies
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and with causes that consumers feel strongly about,
business ethics are the two concepts that are often will create social capital and there will be a strong
used inter-exchangeably but different. This area is association between consumers and companies
further complicated by the use of other terms such (Dowling, 2001). As most marketing managers do
as corporate goodwill, corporate image, and not have adequate training or competence to
corporate citizenship, to name but a few (for a decide which social cause to support and which to
comprehensive review on CSR, see Carroll, ignore, CRM is opportunistic and superficial at
(1999)). According to Robin and Reidenbach best. At worst it could bring in more trouble than
(1987), CSR is related to the social contract benefit to the organisation as it risks alienating a
between business and society in which it operates, large proportion of its potential consumers by
while business ethics requires organisations to taking stands on issues that are either
behave in accordance with carefully thought-out controversial or have little to do with its core
rules or moral philosophy. Socially “responsible” business, a good example is provided by
behaviour may be ethically neutral or even Benetton’s so-called social issue advertising.
ethically unsound while actions dictated by moral
philosophy may be socially unacceptable. 10. ETHICAL BRANDING
To its critics CSR is all about cover up and spin. AND CORPORATE
Many companies used CSR as a kind of corporate
PR rather than as genuine attempt to change the
GOODWILL
way they interact with society (WARC, 2003). Corporate goodwill can be defined in terms of a
When CSR is driven only by risk management it number of attributes that form a buyer’s
is not only fake and unsustainable, but also perception as to whether a company is well
doomed to failure on its own term (Kitchin, 2003). known, good or bad, reliable, trustworthy,
Instead of addressing real issues, CSR merely reputable and believable (Levitt, 1965). Corporate
stages an elaborate pantomime to conceal or goodwill is concerned with how people feel about
distract public attention away from the corporate a company based on whatever information (or
illness. CSR never tells the audience what misinformation) they have on, company activities,
happened behind the scene, i.e. what is really workplace, past performance and future prospects
going on inside the company. The greatest CSR (Fombrun, 2000). According to Keller (1998), a
show in recent years was put on by Enron: before socially responsible corporate image association
its demise Enron had been on the list of the 100 involves the creation of consumer perceptions of a
Best Companies to Work for in America and company as contributing to community programs,
received six environmental awards in 2000. It supporting artistic and social
issued a triple bottom line report. It had great activities and generally attempting to improve the
policies on climate change, human rights, and (yes welfare of society as a whole.
indeed) anti-corruption. Its CEO gave speeches at A corporate brand is the core component of
ethics conferences and put together a statement of corporate goodwill. Being the face of the
values emphasising “communication, respect, and organisation that owns it, a corporate brand has to
integrity.” The company’s stock was in many communicate to a wider range of audiences than
consumers and investors. There is an interesting

©
Council for Innovative Research 50 | P a g e
www.ijmit.com International Journal of Management & Information Technology
ISSN: 2278-5612 Volume 3, No 1, January, 2013

relationship between corporate goodwill and A popular or successful brand may not be ethical
corporate performance. Corporate goodwill is (it could be a controversial one, such as the
believed to have positive impact on a firm’s chainsaw waving Eminem). On the other hand,
market share and ultimately on the stock market ethical branding cannot guarantee a firm the
value. According to one study of long-term stock success in the marketplace. Consumers generally
price movements and company goodwill changes, do have ethical concerns but such concerns do not
some 8-15% of a company’s stock price can be necessarily become manifest in their actual
accounted for by corporate goodwill (Greyser, purchasing behaviour. So does ethical branding
1996). On the other hand, a company’s corporate matter? The literature seems to be divided on the
goodwill is also affected by its past performance, responses of consumers. One survey in the USA
both financial performance and social finds that ethical behaviour is an important
performance. consideration during the purchase decision and
Clearly there is a close link between ethical consumers are willing to pay higher prices for that
branding and corporate goodwill. These attributes firm’s product (Creyer and Ross, 1997). A UK
may include: honesty, integrity, diversity, quality, study concludes that although consumers are more
respect, responsibility and accountability sophisticated today, this does not necessarily
(cocacola.com), and define what an ethical brand translate into behaviour that favours ethical
stands for. An ethical brand enhances the firm’s companies over unethical ones (Carrigan and
goodwill; such a goodwill reinforces the brand in Attalla, 2001). Another US study finds that
turn. Ethical branding can be studied at both today’s consumers, facing more choices in the
corporate and product levels. At the corporate marketplace and changes in lifestyle, their
level, a corporate brand is a vital part of the sophistication is in decline rather than increase
corporate goodwill management. Any unethical (Titus and Bradford, 1996). The consequence of
behaviour will severely damage or even destroy this decline is unsophisticated consumers tend to
the total intangible asset as evidenced by the some reward unethical business practices and punish
recent high profile scandals such as Enron and ethical business behaviour. As far as ethical
Anderson Consulting. Branding at the product branding is concerned, two questions need to be
level involves labelling, packaging and asked: Do the brand users care? Do the general
communicating. Although these do not have a public care?
direct impact upon the corporate brand, they can Despite the conflicting findings in the literature,
still affect the goodwill of the organisation. Some society today seems to be more concerned about
corporate PR activities such as sponsorship and ethical issues in marketing compared with 20
donations will not automatically change the public years ago. The more high-profile a brand is, the
opinion if the company is generally perceived as higher expectation in ethical behaviour the public
unethical and not genuine; for example, the would place upon the brand. As an increasing
sponsorship of a research centre for corporate number of consumers become ethically conscious,
responsibility by a tobacco firm. Corporate they do take ethical issues in branding seriously.
donations and CSR should not be used as varnish This will in turn force branding to become more
to cover corporate misbehaviour. The organisation ethically accountable.
needs to make systematic efforts to create and
maintain an ethical corporate brand image that not 12. CONCLUSIONS
only enhances its corporate goodwill but also
Business is a human activity and, like most human
gives the business competitive advantages.
activities, it has been and is likely to continue to
11. DOES THE CONSUMER be evaluated from a moral point of view (Robin
and Reidenbach, 1987). Branding, as part of
REALLY CARE ABOUT business, is no exception. There is still much
BRANDING ETHICS? confusion about whether a brand itself is unethical
or whether something casts an unethical image on

©
Council for Innovative Research 51 | P a g e
www.ijmit.com International Journal of Management & Information Technology
ISSN: 2278-5612 Volume 3, No 1, January, 2013

the brand. A brand is itself neither good nor bad. What criteria can be used to differentiate ethical
But the value a brand represents and branding branding from unethical branding? How does the
decisions and practice, as a subset of marketing, company create and communicate an ethical
can be ethical or unethical. brand? Does ethical branding affect consumers’
The age of differentiation in products or service is purchasing decisions?
all but gone as there is virtually little difference Secondly, at a philosophical level: the relationship
between the competing offers. Consumers are well between brand/branding and society needs to be
aware of this fact. A recent survey by the examined. Is the goal of branding primarily and
Marketing Forum /Consumer Association revealed exclusively to enrich its shareholders? What is the
a high degree of consumer scepticism and social purpose of branding? What are its impact
cynicism to branding. 78% consumers agreed with and consequences? Should a brand stand for some
the statement that “Companies like to pretend core human values? How does this fit with the
their brands are really different, but actually social role or CSR of the business?
there’s rarely any substantial difference between
them”, while 76% agreed that many companies REFERENCE
“see their brands as a way of pushing up prices”
[1] Aaker, D. (1991) Managing brand
(Mitchell, 2001). Today’s business organisations
equity, Free Press
face the increasing pressure from two fronts:
[2] Aitchison, J. (1999) Cutting edge
 from shareholders the pressure to
advertising, Prentice Hall Singapore
improve financial performance, [3] Ambler, T. (1997) “Do brands benefit
 from wide stakeholders to behave in a consumers? International Journal of
socially responsible way. Advertising, 16, 167-198.
If corporate goodwill is a valuable intangible asset [4] Carroll, A. B. (1999) “Corporate social
that needs to be actively managed in the responsibility, Business and Society,
boardroom (Larkin, 2003) rather than be passively 38:3, 268-295
defended or rescued when in crisis, ethics and [5] Carrigan, M and Attalla, A, (2001) The
social responsibility hold the key in corporate myth of the ethical consumer - do ethics
communications. Ethical corporate branding has a matter in purchase behaviour? Journal
greater role to play in the corporate goodwill of Consumer Marketing, 18:7, 560-77.
management. Corporate branding should provide a [6] Cryer, E H and Ross, W T (1997) The
clear vision about how the firm’s brands are going influence of firm behaviour on purchase
to make the world a better place and have a intention: do consumers really care
justified set of core values (de Chernatony and about business ethics? Journal of
McDonald, 2003). This ethical brand positioning consumer Marketing, 14:6, 421-33
could benefit the company with a differential [7] De Chernatony L. and McDonald M.
advantage over competition; and at the same time, (2003) Creating Powerful Brands, 3/e
could help overcome the increasing consumers’ Elsevier
scepticism and cynicism towards branding [8] Dunfee, T. W., Smith, N. C. and Ross,
communications. W. T. (1999) “Social contracts and
Ethical branding is a new area with many marketing ethics”, Journal of Marketing,
complicated issues in need of research. These 63 July 14-32
issues can be separated into two broad categories. [9] Dowling, G. (2001) Creating corporate
Firstly, ethical issues in the branding decisions: goodwills, Oxford University Press.
naming, renaming, positioning and targeting. [10] Feldwick, P. (1996) “What is brand
Enough has been written about the purported equity anyway, and how do you
benefits that a brand brings to the consumer and measure it?” Journal of the Market
its owner (Ambler, 1997). Further research should Research Society, 38:2, 85-104
ask new questions: What is ethical branding?

©
Council for Innovative Research 52 | P a g e
www.ijmit.com International Journal of Management & Information Technology
ISSN: 2278-5612 Volume 3, No 1, January, 2013

[11] Fombrun, C. (2000) “The value to be effects. Harvard Business School,

found in corporate goodwill”, Financial Boston, MA
Times, 4 December [25] Kitchin, T. (2003) “Human structure: an
[12] Friedman, M. (1970) “The social oxymoron”, mutualmarketing.co.uk,
responsibility of business is to increase 07/10/03
its profits”, The New York Times [26] Martin, T. R. (1985) “Ethics in
Magazine, 13 Sept. marketing: problems and prospects”, in
[13] Goodyear, M. (1996) “Divided by a Laczniak, G. R. and Murphy. P. E.
common language”, Journal of Market (Eds), Marketing Ethics: Guideline for
Research Society, 38:2, 110-22 Managers, Lexington Books, MA
[14] Greyser, S. (1996) “Corporate goodwill [27] Mitchell, A. (2001) “Rethinking brand
and the bottom line”, speech at the thinking: the emperor’s new clothes- A
launch of the International Corporate backlash against branding?”, Market
Identity Group, House of Lords, London Leader, Issue 15
[15] Hall, J. (1999) “Corporate ethics and the [28] Murphy, P. E. (1999) “Ethics in
new commercial paradigm”, Journal of advertising: review, analysis, and
Brand Management, 7:1 38-47 suggestions”, Journal of Public Policy
[16] Ind, N. (2001) Living the brand, Kogan and Marketing, 17:2, 316-19.
Page. [29] Ries, A. and Trout, J. (1982)
[17] Kapferer, J. (1997) Strategic brand Positioning: the battle for your mind,
management, 2/e, Kogan Page Warner, NY.
[18] Kapferer, J. (2001) Reinventing the [30] Robin, D. P. and Reidenbach, R. E.
brand, Kogan Page (1987) “Social responsibility, ethics, and
[19] Keller, K. (1998) Strategic brand marketing strategy: closing the gap
management, Prentice Hall between concept and application”,
[20] Kelly, M. (2002) “The next step for Journal of Marketing, 51, Jan., 44-58
CSR: building economic democracy”, [31] Smith, N. C. (1995) “Marketing
Business Ethics, Summer Issue. strategies for the ethics era”, Sloan
[21] Kunde, J. and Cunningham, B. J. (2002) Management Review, Summer 85-97
Corporate religion, FT Management. [32] Vitell, S. J. and Grove, S.J. (1987)
[22] Laczniak, G. R. “Marketing ethics: “Marketing ethics and the techniques of
onward toward greater expectations”, neutralisation”, Journal of Business
Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Ethics, 6, 433-438
12:1, 91-96. [33] WARC (2003) “Corporate social
[23] Larkin, J. (2003) Strategic Goodwill responsibility – how far should it go?”
Risk Management, Palgrave Hot Topics, November,
MacMillian. www.warc.com/fulltext/hottopics/78289
[24] Levitt, T (1965) Industrial Purchasing .htm
Behaviour: A study of communication

©
Council for Innovative Research 53 | P a g e