This article applies a theory-of-the-firm perspective to gain insights about a just allocation of economic resources by the marketing system. It discusses three groups of firm perspectives (i.e., economic theories, contingency theories, and marketing-oriented theories of the firm) and their implications for (1) the definition of distributive justice; (2) the sources, frequency, and intensity of conflict; and (3) approaches to conflict resolution. Finally, the authors argue that a stakeholder perspective of the firm is the most appropriate theory to avoid conflict and promote cooperation between the firm and its stakeholders because of both its instrumental and normative foundation.
Agle, B.R., R.K. Mitchell, and J.A. Sonnenfield .1999. Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance and CEO values . Academy of Management Journal42 (5): 507—25.
2.
American Marketing Association.2004. Marketing definitions. Accessed November 21, 2007, from http://www.marketingpower.com/content4620.php
3.
Anderson, E.W., C. Fornell, and S.K. Mazvancheryl .2004. Customer satisfaction and shareholder value. Journal of Marketing68 (4): 172—85.
4.
Anderson, P.F.1982. Marketing, strategic planning and the theory of the firm . Journal of Marketing46 (2): 15—26.
5.
Barney, J.1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management17 (1): 99—120.
6.
Bush, P., and D. Koziel.2002. How and why to build an internal marketing campaign. Harvard Business Online B0205C. Available at harvard businessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu
7.
Day, G.S.1994. The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing58 (3): 37—52.
8.
De Cremer, D., and T.R. Tyler.2005. Managing group behavior: The interplay between procedural justice, sense of self, and cooperation. In Advances of experimental social psychology, Vol. 38, edited by M. Zanna, 151—218. New York: Academic Press.
9.
DiMaggio, P.J., and W.W. Powell.1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational field. American Sociological Review48: 147—60.
10.
Donaldson, T., and L.E. Preston.1995. Stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review29 (1): 65—91.
11.
Freeman, R.E.1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
12.
———, A.C. Wicks, and B. Parmar.2004. Stakeholder theory and “the corporate objective revisited”. Organization Science15 (3): 364—69.
13.
French, W., and D. Allbright.1998. Resolving a moral conflict through discourse . Journal of Business Ethics17: 177—94.
14.
Garrett, T.1966. Business ethics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
15.
Handelman, J.M., and S.J. Arnold.1999. The role of marketing actions with a social dimension: Appeals to the institutional environment. Journal of Marketing63 (3): 33—48.
16.
Henriques, I., and P. Sadorsky.1999. The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance. Academy of Management Journal41 (1): 89—99.
17.
Hunt, S.D., and R.M. Morgan.1995. The comparative advantage theory of competition. Journal of Marketing59 (2): 1—15.
18.
Kohli, A.K., and B.J. Jaworksi.1990. Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing54 (2): 1—18.
Kumar, N., L.K. Scheer, and J.-B.E.M. Steenkamp .1995. The effects of supplier fairness on vulnerable resellers. Journal of Marketing Research32 (1): 54—65.
21.
Laczniak, G.R.1983. Framework for analyzing marketing ethics. Journal of Macromarketing3 (1): 7—18.
22.
———. 1999. Distributive justice, Catholic social teaching and the moral responsibility of marketers. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing18 (1): 125—29.
23.
——— and P.E. Murphy.2006. Normative perspective for ethical and socially responsible marketing. Journal of Macromarketing26 (2): 154—77.
24.
Levitt, T.1960. Marketing myopia. Harvard Business Review38 (July-August): 24—47.
25.
Maignan, I., and O.C. Ferrell.2004. Corporate social responsibility and marketing: An integrative framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science32 (1): 3—19.
26.
Maignan, I., G.T.M. Hult, and O.C. Ferrell.2007. Stakeholder-and-market orientations: Which drives outcomes in a more significant way? Working paper, Michigan State University.
27.
Mikula, G., B. Petri, and N. Tanzer.1990. What people regard as unjust: Types and structures of everyday experiences on injustice. European Journal of Social Psychology20 (2): 133—49.
28.
Mitchell, R.K., B.R. Agle, and D.J. Wood.1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review22 (4): 853—86.
29.
Pfeffer, J., and G.R. Salancik.1978. The external control of organizations . New York: Harper & Row.
30.
Rahim, M.A.2002. Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict. The International Journal of Conflict Management13 (3): 206—35.
31.
Rawls, J.1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA : Harvard Business Press.
32.
Rest, J.R., M.J. Bebau, and J. Volker.1986. An overview of the psychology of morality . In Moral development: Advances in research and theory, edited by J. R. Rest, 1—27. New York: Preager.
33.
Ross, W.D.1930. The right and the good. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
34.
Rust, R.T., K.N. Lemon, and V.A. Zeithaml.2004. Return on marketing: Using customer equity to focus marketing strategy. Journal of Marketing68 (1): 109—27.
35.
Srivastava, R.K., L. Fahey, and H.K. Christensen .2001. The resource-based view and marketing: The role of market-based assets in gaining competitive advantage . Journal of Management27: 777—802.
36.
Srivastava, R.K., T.A. Shervani, and L. Fahey.1998. Market-based assets and shareholder value: A framework for analysis. Journal of Marketing62 (1): 2—18.
37.
Srivastava, R.K., T.A. Shervani, and L. Fahey.1999. Marketing, business processes and shareholder value: An organizationally embedded view of marketing activities and the discipline of marketing. Journal of Marketing63 (special issue): 168—79.
38.
Suchman, M.C.1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches . Academy of Management Review20 (July): 571—610.
39.
Sundaram, A.K., and A.C. Inkpen.2004. The corporate objective revisited. Organization Science15 (3): 350—63.
