Socially Responsible Marketing for the iPhone

Increasingly, customers, shareholders, employees, the media, and competitors expect companies to develop corporate socially responsible core values and business models and to communicate these initiatives as part of their marketing plans and brand messages (Kotler & Keller, 2012). There are many possible aspects of corporate social responsibility, but most involve the consideration of the company’s influence and decisions on the welfare of its customers, the world, the environment, its employees, and its shareholders—generally beyond the merely financial. As detailed by Sisodia, Sheth, and Wolfe in “Firms of endearment,” some corporations—such as Whole Foods, Patagonia, Google, Unilever, IKEA, and Toms—led the charge within the business world toward a new way of thinking about corporate responsibility extending beyond the financial profits of shareholders to the effects of the company on people and society as a whole (2014). Apple—especially within the past few years—came late to the table in terms of crafting and communicating a systematic practice and message of corporate social responsibility (Duhigg & Barboza, 2012).

Some business experts refer to corporate social responsibility in terms of the triple bottom line—referring to profits, people, and the planet (Sisodia, Sheth, & Wolfe, 2014). In addition to the traditional corporate responsibility of creating robust financial strength and bounteous profits for shareholders, Kotler and Keller (2012) avow the new corporate vision also incorporates ways in which the company can benefit people—be they employees or customers or developing country populations or the world at large—and the planet—especially with respect to questions of sustainability and the environment. Within this general scope, an impressive number of options can be developed into a corporate strategy. Of course, there always seem to be tradeoffs and unintended consequences, which might displease vocal activists if their pet issue doesn’t benefit from the strategy (Kotler & Keller, 2012).

As a case in point, Nestle began utilizing palm oil in its products when it seemed to be an ideal renewable fuel that could be utilized in spite of the ban on trans fats (Kotler & Keller, 2012). Greenpeace and other environmentalists later tied the use of palm oil to the destruction of rain forests and the extinction of orangutans and sun bears. Despite Nestle’s best intentions, the negative fallout from the backlash far exceeded any goodwill it might have garnered from its attempts to use sustainable, renewable resources (Kotler & Keller, 2012).

Additionally, according to Kotler and Keller (2012), some of the high dollar corporate philanthropy engaged in by some particularly successful companies—such as Bank of America, DuPont, Merck, Wal-Mart, and Phillip Morris—is often viewed skeptically by consumers. This can stem from the belief that the values are not integrated into a firm’s core values and, thus, seem to be an attempt to buy good publicity for industries that might be seen as harmful overall.

Apple only recently began to produce reports related to social responsibility in response to a great deal of negative publicity in the media related to poor worker conditions and treatment—particularly in China—and environmental and sustainability issues (Duhigg & Barboza, 2012). In January 2012, a New York Times article by Duhigg and Barboza detailed some of the worst labor-related occurrences at Chinese Apple suppliers, including an explosion that month at a factory killing several workers and injuring many more, the previous injuring of 137 workers when they were forced to clean iPhones using a poisonous chemical, and at least two other explosions that had occurred in the prior couple of years that killed four and injured 77 (Duhigg & Barboza, 2012). Independent monitors had warned Apple about the labor safety issues to no avail (Duhigg & Barboza, 2012).

Additionally, Apple exhibited a reticence to explain environmental concerns or regulatory problems discussed in the media (Kotler & Keller, 2012). Many began to consider Apple’s reluctance to make public statements to be a form of egotism and lack of desire to communicate with its customers or with those affected by its actions. In this new age of social responsibility, that type of insular behavior is viewed unfavorably. Partly in response to public outcry and many negative reports in the media, Apple began publishing its annual Supplier Progress Report detailing health and safety, environmental, labor and human rights, and accountability issues (Apple, 2014).

While this signals Apple’s awareness of the necessity for corporate social responsibility and communication with the outside world, Apple still has a very long way to go before it can approach those companies, such as Patagonia and Toms, that consider it part of their corporate mission to make the world a better place (Sisodia, Sheth, & Wolfe, 2014). Apple’s actions—since they came after so much media scrutiny and pressure from activist groups—seems to some like nothing more than defensive actions to stave off criticism, as opposed to a clearly defined, on-brand development incorporated into the values of the company. Because of this, some of the enthusiasm for Apple as a company has waned as the world waits to see if Apple will learn to become as adept at innovating its company culture and value system as it is at developing cutting edge technology (Duhigg & Barboza, 2012).

References

Apple Inc. (2014). Supplier responsibility 2014 report. http://images.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/pdf/Apple_SR_2014_Progress_Report.pdf

Duhigg, C., & Barboza, D. (2012, January 25). In China, human costs are built into an ipad. The New York Times, p. A1.

Kotler, P., & Keller, K. (2012). Marketing management, 14e. New York: Prentice Hall.

Sisodia, R., Sheth, J., & Wolfe, D. (2014). Firms of endearment: How world-class companies profit from passion and purpose. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.