Beyond Poverty: Social Justice in a Global Marketplace

Abstract

The social justice paradigm, developed in philosophy by John Rawls and others, reaches limits when confronted with diverse populations, unsound governments, and global markets. Its parameters are further limited by a traditional utilitarian approach to both industrial actors and consumer behaviors. Finally, by focusing too exclusively on poverty, as manifested in insufficient incomes or resources, the paradigm overlooks the oppressive role that gender, race, and religious prejudice play in keeping the poor subordinated. The authors suggest three ways in which marketing researchers could bring their unique expertise to the question of social justice in a global economy: by (1) reinventing the theoretical foundation laid down by thinkers such as Rawls, (2) documenting and evaluating emergent "feasible fixes" to achieve justice (e.g., the global resource dividend, cause-related marketing, Fair Trade, philanthrocapitalism), and (3) exploring the parameters of the consumption basket that would be minimally required to achieve human capabilities.

Biodiversity for Billionaires: Capitalism, Conservation and the Role of Philanthropy in Saving/Selling Nature

“…This trend, referred to by critics and opponents alike as philanthrocapitalism, represents the extension and deepening of links between capitalism and philanthropy, and a growing confidence in arguing that they should be drawn even closer (Bishop and Green, 2008;Edwards, 2008;Nickel and Eikenberry, 2010;Scott et al, 2011). This trend, referred to by critics and opponents alike as philanthrocapitalism, represents the extension and deepening of links between capitalism and philanthropy, and a growing confidence in arguing that they should be drawn even closer (Bishop and Green, 2008;Edwards, 2008;Nickel and Eikenberry, 2010;Scott et al, 2011).…”

“…Firstly, it argues that successful capitalists are ideal philanthropists, that they are better at doing good than government or NGO officials because the same skills, attitudes, entrepreneurship, connections and drive which made them successful businesspeople will also make them successful philanthropists (Bishop and Green, 2008;Edwards, 2008;Moody, 2008;Scott et al, 2011). Firstly, it argues that successful capitalists are ideal philanthropists, that they are better at doing good than government or NGO officials because the same skills, attitudes, entrepreneurship, connections and drive which made them successful businesspeople will also make them successful philanthropists (Bishop and Green, 2008;Edwards, 2008;Moody, 2008;Scott et al, 2011).…”

“…The relationship between capitalism, conservation and philanthropy may be changing, as new ideas about what philanthropy is and how it should be practised come to the fore. This trend, referred to by critics and opponents alike as philanthrocapitalism, represents the extension and deepening of links between capitalism and philanthropy, and a growing confidence in arguing that they should be drawn even closer (Bishop and Green, 2008;Edwards, 2008;Nickel and Eikenberry, 2010;Scott et al, 2011). Its emergence has been linked to a new generation of philanthropists who have become rich at a relatively young age from IT and finance (e.g.…”

Poverty Research and Measurement: Making the Case for Consumption Adequacy

“…Utilizing various methodologies, consumer researchers discover answers to questions such as how circumstances among the poor can be improved by entrepreneurial activities (Venugopal, Viswanathan, and Jung 2015), how access to credit and rural banking systems support or fail to support their needs (Dadzie et al 2013), and how income and food security are related to use of food pantries and food stamps in low-income households (Bhattarai, Duffy, and Raymond 2005). Researchers develop general frameworks that can be used broadly, such as work developed by Scott et al (2011), who examined social justice in the global marketplace, and by Martin and Hill (2012), who developed the consumption adequacy benchmark via a worldwide analysis.…”

Immigrants versus Nationals: When an Intercultural Service Encounter Failure Turns to Verbal Confrontation

“…In particular, both nonphysical (e.g., verbal confrontation) and physical (e.g., violence) aggressions are serious concerns that may occur when a service encounter failure escalates (LeBlanc and Kelloway 2002). Understanding the nature and consequences of intercultural service encounter failure has been central to marketplace debates since the U.S. civil rights era and remains a global contemporary social justice issue today (Scott et al 2011).…”