I accept your apology. Michael Barnett's original rant, after my posting of
a quote with the innocuous title, No time for hagiography or a hatchet
time--the legacy of Anita Roddick, certainly didn't deserve the personal
attacks and wild speculation that it engendered. But hey, as Anita Roddick,
the self-proclaimed (but not practicing) anarchist and financial supporter
of the Ruckus Society once said, you sometimes have to suffer the bows and
arrows of the masses to be an individual.
Jon
On 9/13/07 12:30 PM, "Rudell, Fredrica" <
FRudell@IONA.EDU> wrote:
> I fear that my posting regarding the true origin of Entine's quote may have
> been the shift in tone, and I apologize. I just thought it was suspicious and
> decided to check the source...and perhaps expressed my shock a bit too
> bluntly.
>
> I enjoyed reading the various views and remembrances of Roddick and her
> marketing techniques. I think most innovators in business and other fields
> have their supporters and their critics. Nothing new there.
>
> This continues to be a very enlightening discussion, which has moved on past
> the original rant, and I've changed the subject line to reflect the new
> direction. - F.
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion on behalf of
> Barnett, Michael
> Sent: Wed 9/12/2007 9:11 PM
> To:
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
> Subject: Re: Entine quote from "Green Business site"?
>
>
>
> Though I think Andy is trying to push away from an unwelcome "tone" that I'm
> at least partially responsible for setting :-) , I'll chime in anyway. I too
> have no data, only theory, but in my theory, I refer to other papers that
> might be of interest. In my paper on CSR published in the July issue of AMR,
> in the buildup to Proposition 2, I talk about greenwashing, and note studies
> such as Webb & Mohr (1998) that show that a sizeable portion of the market is
> willing to accept claims of social responsibility at face value. However I go
> on to argue that a firm increases its risk by engaging in greenwashing, such
> that if it is ever caught in the lie, it will be thrashed (and so may need to
> engage in some of those face-saving measures that Lionel mentions).
> Interestingly, I cite Jon Entine's work on The Body Shop (twice!) to support
> my position. You'll find the prettier version of this paper through the
> Academy's proprietary website or in the journal itself, but if you can't get
> the article through these means, here's a link to the accepted but unedited
> version of it:
>
>
>
>
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=853086
>
>
>
> More tranquilly yours (after 3 straight nights of 3-hour class sessions),
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> ***********************
>
> Michael L. Barnett, PhD
>
> University of South Florida
>
> College of Business Administration
>
> Department of Management & Organization
>
> 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, BSN 3213
>
> Tampa, FL 33620-5500
>
> Phone: 813-974-1727
>
> Fax: 813-974-1734
>
> E-mail:
mbarnett@coba.usf.edu
>
> Webpage:
http://www.coba.usf.edu/barnett
>
>
>
> View my research on my SSRN Author page:
>
> <http://ssrn.com/author=414796>
>
> **************************************************
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
> [mailto:
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Dayna Simpson
> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 7:38 PM
> To:
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
> Subject: Re: Entine quote from "Green Business site"?
>
>
>
> I'll follow Andrew's lead and recommend a nice article on this topic, which
> partly addresses that fundamental question. Is it because the marketing is
> related to a cause or is it knowledge of the cause itself that encourages
> consumers to purchase products such as those from the Body Shop. I quite liked
> Lafferty and Goldsmith (2005) "Does the cause help the brand or does the brand
> help the cause". J. Business Research, 58, 4.
>
> On a side note, the body shop were one of the first to show us that a brand
> based on more 'responsible' products could be profitable and attract
> consumers. We can at least acknowledge the shift in attitudes toward CSR that
> they generated regardless of where they are now. And they still sell nice lip
> gloss.
>
> Dayna
>
> Dayna Simpson
> Department of Marketing
> Monash University
> P: +61 413 313 393
> E:
daynasimpson@hotmail.com,
Dayna.Simpson@buseco.monash.edu.au
>
>> Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:37:47 -0400
>> From:
Andrew.A.King@TUCK.DARTMOUTH.EDU
>> Subject: Re: Entine quote from "Green Business site"?
>> To:
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
>>
>> Perhaps I may change the tone and redirect us to a related topic.
>>
>> Proposition: Firms (like the Body Shop) are rewarded by stakeholders for
>> reportedly beneficial actions whose credibility cannot assessed. In
>> other words, stakeholders reward firms for stuff that may be greenwash.
>>
>> Do you think this is true? Are stakeholders prone to being credulous on
>> environmental matters so that they infer environmental actions when
>> unbiased analysis of the data would suggest otherwise? If so, do firms
>> respond knowingly to this susceptibility? Are there good examples of
>> such behavior?
>>
>> AK
>>
>>
>>
--
Jon Entine
American Enterprise Institute
http://www.jonentine.com
P. (513) 527-4385
C: (513) 319-8388
FAX: (937) 910-6676