Strategic Marketing: Market-Oriented Corporate ...
This conceptual paper explores gaps in bank privacy protection practices and advocates for banks to integrate market-oriented (MO) approaches in their corporate digital responsibility (CDR) initiatives to minimize consumer data vulnerability.
Strategic Marketing: Market-Oriented Corporate ...
The paper contributes to the research in corporate social responsibility (CSR), privacy and data vulnerability in the banking sector in two prominent ways: first, the study demonstrates the importance of MO as a premise to develop a novel version of CDR called market-oriented digital responsibility (MODR). The study considers MODR as a strategy to reposition vulnerable consumers as a key stakeholder, and, second, the study proposes an innovative set of consumer segments based on data vulnerability and introduces a data vulnerability growth model (DVGM) connecting vulnerability with age.
Large forest industry companies typically consist of several business units or several groups of business units (e.g., divisions) operating as one financial entity. Business units can be from the same or different branches. Economic and financial questions are generally handled by corporate management, and strategic planning is particularly important at this level.
The following summarizes the definition of corporate strategy and the differences between corporate and marketing strategy. According to Ansoff, careful definition of the product/market area is an essential component of strategic planning. He suggests that strategic decisions are those which define the business area in which the company chooses to operate. These two comments can be used to distinguish corporate from marketing strategies. At the corporate level, product/market decisions are made with respect to the business area or industry chosen. At the business unit level, product/market decisions are clearly made with respect to products to be produced and customers to be served. When the business unit or marketing manager is considering what kind of products to offer, the corporate CEO considers which divisions, industries, businesses, or strategic business units to invest in or divest.
The difference between an SBU and an SBA can be explained through the company philosophy: production- versus market-orientation. In corporate strategic planning, a production-oriented company emphasizes SBUs while a market-oriented company emphasizes SBAs.
Since the 1990s the general direction in the forest industries has been to concentrate on core businesses. Many multi-industry corporations have renewed their strategies and now concentrate only on forest-based industries. In the late 1980s, a Finnish multi-industry corporation Rauma-Repola started developing its corporate strategy by listing its strategic business units (also referred to as industry groups or business areas):
Strategic accounts are important at the corporate level of planning because of the size and power of the biggest customers. They might be global or multi-national companies using centralized and harmonized supply processes and preferring one-stop-shopping. Ongoing globalization and consolidation have increased the size of both forest industry companies and their major customers. Big paper users (printers and packagers) or big DIY chains can be larger than even the biggest paper or wood products producers. Very large customers are strategically valuable for the entire corporation and their needs should be taken into consideration in corporate planning.
Strategic account management is a method for dealing with very large customers. Because some mills or divisions may be too small to satisfy the multi-faceted demands of very large customers, the solution must be created at the corporate level. When a market-oriented corporation is making decisions concerning SBAs, the starting point could be a strategic account instead of a traditional end-use sector. In other words, a strategic account may mean that one key customer forms an SBA. Strategic account-based SBAs can actually impact the corporate organizational structure. This means that the whole corporate strategic planning must be market-oriented and more closely resembles strategic marketing planning.
Strategic account-based corporate strategic planning limits the possibilities of marketing planning and coordination on lower company levels. Division level management must take accounts identified by corporate management into consideration in their marketing and production plans. Division level management may identify their own strategic accounts. At the mill or product level, planning the decisions of corporate and division managers must be taken into consideration before separate customer decisions can be made. Again at this level, managers may have their own strategic accounts.
Strategic account-based corporate strategy requires that the company and the customer share information and align many of their processes. Mutual trust and cooperation are needed to form a working, rewarding, and long-term partnership. The structures and functions of the company are planned so that they effectively implement the strategic account-based strategy.
The rationale of choosing known end-users is that concentrating on the most valuable customers makes good business sense. The customer interface and especially strategic accounts, which usually account for the majority of sales, are essential for the successful business in the long run. Building long-term customer relationships is the focus for market-oriented companies. Known end-users as a customer choice is also supported by the fact that retaining customers is less expensive than acquiring new ones. One of the main challenges companies face is retaining the chosen customers, creating loyalty, and assuring that the accounts are profitable. When identifying the most important customers, or strategic accounts, a number of criteria can be used:
Earlier we considered planning of corporate strategies using portfolio matrices. In principle, choosing customers is a similar planning situation. With respect to strategic business areas, we examine end-use sectors with corresponding products. The end-use-sectors could be window manufacturers, furniture manufacturers, edge-glued panel manufacturers or planing mills. The criteria for the attractiveness of these sectors must be developed. Correspondingly, instead of relative position we consider the strengths and weaknesses connected to the products, production, and marketing of the company.
Therefore, a key strategy for customer-focused firms is to measure service quality. Customer satisfaction or dissatisfaction may result from experiencing a service and comparing that experience with the kind of quality of service that was expected (Ismail et al. 2006; Voon 2006). According to Voon (2006), service is said to be the competitive tool for differentiation that is difficult for rivals to imitate, and service quality needs to be strategically managed for competitive advantage. The literature underscores the point that market-oriented service behaviors are instrumental in delivering quality service (Camarero 2007; Lam et al. 2012; Voon 2006). Market orientation could also lead to improved service quality for service industry organisations (Agarwal et al. 2003; Camarero 2007; Lam et al. 2012).
Prior researchers have largely not focused on how management factors, interdepartmental dynamics, and organisational systems impact on MO and CSR simultaneously (Aguinis and Glavas 2012). Aguinis and Glavas (2012) and Kuada and Hinson (2012) opined that the investigation into the predictors or antecedents on corporate social responsibility is scanty. This calls for scholars in marketing to research into the factors that can influence MO and CSR simultaneously in an organisational setting. In this competitive era firms cannot survive on a single strategy (Grinstein 2008; Brik et al. 2011; Mitchell et al. 2010; Blankson et al. 2013; Han et al. 2013). This phenomenon is encouraging firms to integrate economic and social strategies in contemporary times in the business environment. Drawing from resource-based perspectives both market orientation and corporate social responsibility have been viewed as corporate resources for business performance (Morgan et al. 2009). In this sense, in an industry where the level of market orientation and corporate social responsibility are low, firms that are market-oriented and socially responsible should experience high business performance than rival firms in such industries (Qu and Ennew 2007).
This conceptualisation has contributed to the limited studies in the scholarly literature on the integration of market orientation and corporate social responsibility (Qu 2009; Brik et al. 2011; Mahmoud and Hinson 2012a, b, Hinson and Mahmoud 2011). The study has conceptualised a theoretical link on the integration of MO, CSR and business performance. This framework could be applied by firms to enhance their business performance or competitiveness. The conceptualisation has also suggested predictor variables of corporate social responsibility similar to that of market orientation. These measures depart from the use of traditional measures of size, income, origin of firms and external pressure as factors of engagement in CSR activities (Kuada and Hinson 2012). This study offers an opportunity for appropriate strategic marketing development in the several industries and enables managers of these institutions to identify the appropriate blend of market orientation and corporate responsibility for superior business performance.
Haugland et al. (2007) encouraged researchers to elaborate on the role of market orientation and other strategic orientations. The literature on market orientation and corporate social responsibility in developing economies is now growing and therefore this conceptualisation will aid in building and enhancing the literature on predictors and integration of market orientation, corporate social responsibility and organisational performance.While this study supports the integration of market orientation and corporate social responsibility for superior business performance, other strategic variables might be appropriate than the two constructs proposed in the framework. This paper provides an opportunity for future inquiry into other variables. 041b061a72