Stakeholders and Corporate Responsibility Case Study – Neuromarketing

Stakeholders and Corporate Responsibility Case Study – Neuromarketing

Definition of neuromarketing

Neuromarketing is a new concept that is being utilized by businesses. It is defined as the study of the human brain to determine its responses to marketing messages (Vences, Diaz-Campo, & Rosales, 2020). In the case study, neuromarketing is defined as a practice that combines marketing and neuroscience, allowing marketers to access the unconscious parts of a consumer’s brain. Through neuromarketing, marketers can figure out the consumers’ reactions to a certain marketing stimulus. These reactions reveal the decision-making process, which turns a potential buyer into an actual client. Its main objective is to allow organizations to predict the behaviors of their target markets using biometric measures.

This ability allows the creation of content that actively engages both organizations and the targeted audience. Most organizations, such as Hyundai, Microsoft, The Weather Channel, and Frito-Lay, continue to engage neuromarketing companies to gain marketing insights that guide product development and advertising activities. For instance, Hyundai states that it would like to understand the consumers’ thoughts regarding vehicles prior to manufacturing. This information is perceived as objective, quantitative, and reliable. Hyundai and other companies hope to use such information to adjust their actual products and marketing activities as well as to lead to more sales (Weiss, 2014).

Ethical and business practice aspects of neuromarketing based on the case study and research

Neuromarketing has an unethical aspect to it because it could violate privacy, and its application can be harmful. As the article highlights, companies gain an advantage over consumers because they have information that clients are unaware of. Consumers may no longer buy out of need but through unrecognized coercion. It is possible to use this information to encourage unhealthy behaviors through the sale of products and services that facilitate the same. Since most companies are out to make profits, the application of this information leads to the manipulation of clients to gain a specific result (Wieckowski, 2019). In addition, the information can be misused by political and extremist groups that seek to further selfish interests.

During elections, it is possible for politicians to behave in a manner that convinces voters to elect them because they have additional insight into the citizens’ minds and thought processes. Similarly, extremist groups can use the same information to radicalize more individuals and encounter less resistance. The concept of privacy gained increased recognition after the 9/11 attack. Neuromarketing activities create intense debates around interference with individuals’ privacy. According to some marketers, neuromarketing provides critical insight into information that an individual is unaware of or lies about. However, a valid question is raised regarding the consumers’ willingness and freedom to either reveal or conceal this information (Weiss, 2014). The fact that neuromarketing offers companies the ability to circumvent an individual’s right to reveal or conceal certain information highlights a grave violation of their privacy.

The main ethical issues that arise in neuromarketing revolve around the likelihood of crossing the persuasion line into manipulating clients to compulsive instead of conscious buying (Wieckowski, 2019). Companies that are greedy or groups that seek to further personal interests are not likely to uphold the benevolence principle. The threat to consumers’ autonomy is real because there are no standards and principles protecting clients from manipulation. While the Neuromarketing Science and Business Administration has already established a code of ethics, there is no guarantee that all groups and marketers will adhere to it when applying information obtained from the measures. In addition, other population groups such as children and adolescents are persons of interest because neuromarketing could take advantage of their lack of self-control, create conflict between the children and parents, encourage irresponsible consumerism that could lead to dangerous/unhealthy behaviors, and create health issues (Belascu, 2020). Thus, the application of information obtained through neuromarketing is the greatest concern that could violate the code of ethics.

Moral responsibilities and corporate responsibility of marketing companies using neuromarketing techniques

Companies that utilize neuromarketing should first adhere to the code of ethics that is established by the Neuromarketing Science and Business Administration. The main pillars include establishing trust, protecting the privacy of participants, and protection of the service’s purchasers. The companies that use this technique should include the first two principles in their code of ethics. They should also ensure that the neuromarketing service providers protect the information as well. The main guiding principles should revolve around benevolence, integrity, confidentiality, and informed consent (Belascu, 2020). These principles should ensure that the consumer’s autonomy is not threatened.

Marketing companies should make a commitment to ensuring that information is obtained from willing individuals. The respondents should be allowed to prohibit the companies from using their data at any point. The company is obligated to keep respondents informed about the usage of the information obtained from them. When dealing with children, adolescents, and other sensitive groups, it is necessary to avoid manipulation that could lead to harmful behaviors. This means that transparency is critical, alongside allowing consumers to make their choices about a purchase. Corporate responsibility features in the process because companies are compelled to make the decisions that best protect the stakeholders’ interests, in this case, clients. Profits should not exceed the people element of the triple bottom line (Kraaijenbrink, 2019). A balance is necessary to avoid ethical violations.

References

Belascu, A. (2020). Neuromarketing Ethics: How Far Is Too Far? CXL.

Kraaijenbrink, J. (2019). What The 3Ps Of The Triple Bottom Line Really Mean. Forbes.

Vences, N. A., Diaz-Campo, J., & Rosales, D. F. (2020). Neuromarketing as an Emotional Connection Tool Between Organizations and Audiences in Social Networks. A Theoretical Review. Front. Psychol., 11(1787). doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01787

Weiss, J. W. (2014). Business Ethics: A Stakeholder and Issues Management Approach. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Wieckowski, A. G. (2019). When Neuromarketing Crosses the Line. Harvard Business Review.

 Corporate responsibility toward consumers should guide all companies. Businesses have legal and moral obligations to provide their consumers with safe products without using false advertising and without doing harm to the environment. Ethical companies also practice fair and equitable hiring and employment practices. These case studies address unethical and occasionally illegal practices some companies have engaged in.

Stakeholders and Corporate Responsibility Case Study

Instructions:

Choose one of the following three case studies and use the questions to guide your response:

Case Study 14: Neuromarketing

1. 1. Define neuromarketing referencing both the case study and an article you locate on the topic
   2. Based on the case study and your research on the topic, is neuromarketing unethical, or is it an innovative business practice? Explain your response
   3. What moral responsibilities, if any, should marketing companies have – especially those firms using neuromarketing techniques? How does corporate responsibility enter into the strategy?