Explain Brenkert's Position In Marketing And The Vulnerable

Explain Brenkerts Position In Marketing And The Vulnerable Next A

Explain Brenkert’s position in “Marketing and the Vulnerable.” Next, apply his arguments to the case study “Kraft Foods Inc.: The Cost of Advertising on Children’s Waistlines.” What would Brenkert likely conclude about this case? Why? Do you agree or disagree with Brenkert? Why? Submit a word response in APA 6th ed. format. Your paper must include at least two external references. APA 6.0 format.

Paper For Above instruction

In his seminal work “Marketing and the Vulnerable,” Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress articulate a nuanced perspective on marketing practices, especially those involving vulnerable populations such as children. Brenkert’s position aligns with the view that marketing ethics must prioritize protecting vulnerable groups from exploitation and harm. He emphasizes that marketing strategies targeting or influencing vulnerable individuals should be scrutinized carefully to balance commercial interests with moral responsibilities, advocating for ethical standards that restrict manipulative or harmful advertising, particularly towards impressionable children.

Brenkert argues that consumers, particularly vulnerable groups such as children, lack sufficient capacities for informed decision-making, rendering them susceptible to exploitative marketing tactics (Brenkert, 2002). He urges marketers to adopt an ethic of care and responsibility, proposing that businesses should evaluate the potential harm their marketing activities may cause and act to minimize such risks. In this context, Brenkert’s position suggests that marketing practices that exploit children’s inability to critically evaluate advertising content are ethically impermissible, and companies have a moral obligation to restrict or modify such approaches to prevent harm.

Applying Brenkert’s principles to the case study “Kraft Foods Inc.: The Cost of Advertising on Children’s Waistlines,” it becomes evident that his stance would likely condemn the company's advertising strategies aimed at children. Kraft Foods' marketing efforts often promote products high in sugar, fat, and calories, targeting children through television ads, digital media, and sponsorships. Given Brenkert’s emphasis on moral responsibility and the protection of vulnerable populations, he would likely argue that Kraft’s advertising exploits children’s impressionability and lack of critical discernment, contributing to adverse health outcomes such as obesity and related health issues (Kraft Foods Inc., 2013).

Consistent with Brenkert’s ethical outlook, he would probably conclude that Kraft’s marketing practices are ethically questionable because they prioritize profit over the health and well-being of children. He might recommend stricter regulations or self-imposed restrictions to prevent the targeting of such marketing campaigns at children, emphasizing that corporations should uphold a duty of care by promoting healthier alternatives and avoiding the glorification of unhealthy foods in children’s media content.

From a personal perspective, I agree with Brenkert’s emphasis on corporate moral responsibility, especially in the context of marketing to children. The evidence linking such advertising to childhood obesity and related health problems is compelling, indicating a need for stricter oversight and ethical marketing practices. Companies have an obligation to ensure their marketing does not harm vulnerable populations, and public health concerns should take precedence over marketing gains in such cases. Ethical marketing requires balancing commercial objectives with societal duties, safeguarding children from manipulative practices that threaten their long-term health.

In conclusion, Brenkert’s position advocates for heightened ethical standards and responsibility among marketers, particularly concerning vulnerable groups. His critique of practices like those used by Kraft Foods underscores the importance of protecting children from exploitative advertising. Moving forward, both policymakers and corporations should incorporate ethical considerations into their marketing strategies, ensuring that commercial interests do not infringe upon the health and welfare of society’s most impressionable members.

References

• Brenkert, G. G. (2002). Marketing, ethics, and vulnerable populations. Journal of Business Ethics, 40(2), 203-211.
• Kraft Foods Inc. (2013). Corporate responsibility report: Marketing to children. Retrieved from https://www.kraftfoods.com/corporate-responsibility
• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Gordon, P. (2014). Ethics and advertising to children. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(1), 27-38.
• Hastings, G., Stead, M., & Webb, J. (2018). Marketing and public health: Critical perspectives. Routledge.
• Harris, J. L., Bargh, J. A., & Brownell, K. D. (2009). Priming effects of television food advertising on eating behavior. Health Psychology, 28(4), 404–413.
• Powell, L. M., Scherr, R., & Harris, J. L. (2014). Food marketing and childhood obesity: A review of the evidence. Pediatrics, 134(4), 835-837.
• Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2010). Balancing opportunities and risks in children’s online activities: The role of online advertising. Journal of Children and Media, 4(4), 355-370.
• Otto, L. (2015). Ethical implications of marketing to children. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(1), 7-14.
• World Health Organization. (2016). Report of the commission on ending childhood obesity. WHO.