Humanising Marketing: Diversity,Equity and Inclusion in Marketing Scholarship

Diversity, equity and inclusivity are essential ingredients for a harmonious, functioning society. While diversity in society provides exposure to different views, ideas and lifestyles, inclusivity ensures everyone can offer their views and ideas, and the opportunity is equitable for everyone and not dependent on their identity.

Despite that, when looking at most societies, one can still observe noticeable divisions based on things like gender, sexual preference, religion, political ideology, physical ability, neurodiversity and other arbitrary and artificial boundaries of humanity. Such division is often caused by enduring, intergenerational biases that have widespread impact on marketing (Northey et al., 2020; Read et al., 2018), employment (Roberson & Scott, 2024), media (Hatton & Trautner, 2011; G. K. Oakenfull et al., 2008), healthcare (Lopez-Suarez et al., 2023) and food choice (Chan & Zlatevska, 2019; Wilson & Liu, 2011).

However, even though inequality and division has been a consistent hallmark of human existence since the dawn of time, possibly the greatest cause of division and disadvantage has been the unequal distribution of wealth. In many instances, resources, opportunity and abilities have been controlled by a powerful minority. As a result, the accumulation and transfer of intergenerational wealth has been a constant mechanism that increases wealth inequalities and disadvantage in societies.

In pre-neolithic times when humans were primarily hunter-gatherers, assets were typically genetic (grip strength, size, reproductive success) or relational (number of allies, size of family network) but were still forms of wealth transmitted across generations (Kohler et al., 2017). However, the move away from the hunter-gatherer lifestyle and into localised, agricultural and pastoral society meant material wealth, in the form of livestock, land and tools, became the basis of wealth accumulation and transmission (Bogaard et al., 2018).

Effectively, the domestication of animals increased wealth disparities, because large mammals allowed for more profitable use of resources. In addition, those animals also facilitated the development of a ‘mounted warrior elite’ that allowed communities and societies to extend their political reach and proliferate ideology (Kohler et al., 2017). That said, despite the passage of time, income inequality in modern countries is not too dissimilar than it was in distant times (Milanovic et al., 2007). However, the question remains as to how we might reduce such inequalities. The answer to that might lie in the social nature of humanity.

Humans are highly social creatures (Blake & Shiffrar, 2007; Northey & Brodie, 2020). Compared to most other species in the animal kingdom, humans are willing to share resources, with much of that sharing governed by a range of social norms and principles of equity (Duong et al., 2023; Hamann et al., 2011). Ultimately, that social nature is what underpins the formation of societies (Aktipis, 2016), where people come together and engage in communal acts that link individuals together (Belk, 2010) and drive the quest for social justice.

The modern concept of social justice suggests a just society is one in which the liberties of equal citizenship are firmly entrenched, so that people can interact according to recognised rules of conduct (Rawls, 1999). Importantly, those rules should be developed to ‘advance the good’ of all stakeholders, where social cooperation means everyone rather than just a minority benefits. However, history shows us humans are subject to self-interest and will often seek out a larger share of the communal wealth, to the detriment of others. As a result, a key imperative of a just society is to accommodate those who are least advantaged (Rawls, 2001).

While much of the work on social justice has focused on the equitable distribution of economic resources, the concept of social justice has been further expanded to include the distribution of opportunity and social processes (Young, 2010). Achieving social justice requires individuals, organisations and governments to confront ideological frameworks, historical legacies and institutional practices that create systemic inequality, where some groups are advantaged at the expense of other, marginalised minorities (Bell, 2016). Ultimately, if the goal of social justice is full and equitable participation from all groups within a society, then our efforts as educators, researchers and policy shapers are more important than ever. This brings us to the research in this special issue on diversity, equity and inclusivity.

The first two articles in this special issue examine the role of diversity, equity and inclusivity (DEI) in education. In the preceding sections, we mentioned how economic inequality has not only been an issue for millennia, but that such economic inequality inevitably leads to other inequities. This is particularly pertinent in the education setting, where more/less wealth is typically linked to more/less access to education, and education levels of a child’s parents are directly associated with the education outcomes of the child (Dubow et al., 2009).

What is more, family wealth inequality has profound consequences for educational opportunity and academic success across multiple generations (Hällsten & Pfeffer, 2017). So, historically underprivileged groups experience intergenerational disadvantage in education. Compounding the issue is the education systems and institutions are often exclusive places for the privileged, where marginalised minorities often lack voice. In this context, the first article in this special issue makes for very interesting reading.

Looking through a social justice lens, Lewis et al. (2024) examine research conducted in academic journals to understand how LGBTQ+ identities have been constructed within the marketing discipline, exploring which identities have been examined and the focus of such examination. Their research shows related research has typically not sought participation from LGBTQ+ people, instead, focusing on mainstream (heterosexual) audience perceptions of a minority group, thus perpetuating a heteronormative lens for research involving LGBTQ+ communities.

In a similar way, the research by Lambert et al. (2024) also adopted a social justice approach, reporting on a novel course delivery in which students in Australia worked directly with First Nations businesspeople where students could develop greater understanding and appreciation for Indigenous culture. Not only did the applied learning opportunity create a transformational shift in the attitudes of non-indigenous students, but it also increases cultural sensitivities in younger generations as the first step in educating the masses about the intergenerational disadvantage encountered by indigenous populations.

In the same way education can reduce intergenerational disadvantage, sport can unite people and be a platform for elite sports stars to promote social causes. For example, in the United States the NBA established a ‘social justice coalition’ to promote civic engagement and help guide reform of policing and criminal justice, while players wore custom jerseys to promote the Black Lives Matter movement (Zafar & Medien, 2021). In England, Manchester United footballer Marcus Rashford led a campaign to provide free school meals to vulnerable, disadvantaged children (Adams, 2021). However, such displays of ‘social responsibility’ in the sports world can result in fan backlash. Who can forget the negative response from some parts of society when American NFL player Colin Kaepernick took a knee during the national anthem before a match to show support for oppressed black people. Locally, similar fan and player backlash was seen when the National Rugby League (NRL) in Australia supported the Pride movement with a designated ‘Pride round’, where team jerseys were adorned with the rainbow flag.

This was the catalyst for research by Fleischman et al. (2024) who examine how a fan’s support for a team, and the degree to which the team and its actions are congruent with their own identity, influence their reaction to a team’s DEI initiatives. Interestingly, they find fans with low levels of team identification are more likely to feel negative emotions towards DEI initiatives. The key is that having highly engaged fans can translate into greater acceptance for social causes and, over time, a more inclusive society. In a similar vein, research by Upadhyah et al. (2024) identifies the essential factors required for crafting effective inclusivity campaigns. While prior research (G. K. Oakenfull et al., 2008) has suggested when targeting minorities it is critical to not alienate the majority, the findings by Upadhyah et al. (2024) show for campaigns to be truly inclusive, they not only have to be accepted by consumers, as per the findings from Fleischman et al. (2024), but they have to foster social acceptance and empower the respective marginalised communities.

One advancement in modern times that has helped empower marginalised communities is technology. This is because technology can help support the unique needs that might be experienced by certain disadvantaged groups. For example, digital transformation has had a positive impact on the ability for disadvantaged groups to fully participate in the workforce (Katz et al., 2023), achieve academic success (Northey et al., 2015) and receive quality healthcare (Pérez-Stable et al., 2019).

In their research, Ferraro et al. (2024) take this idea further and examine how diversity and inclusivity look in virtual environments. Given recent advances in technology, it is only natural that consumers and brands are increasingly gravitating towards virtual environments. However, as Ferraro et al. (2024) point out, despite the huge opportunity for brands to display corporate values in virtual environments, there is still a dearth of research detailing the effects on consumer attitudes and behaviours. That said, their findings highlight the need for brands to be transparent when including DEI in virtual environments, otherwise consumers may form a negative impression of brand motives.

This concept is supported in the research by van Esch et al. (2024), who highlight the need to align the use of technology, specifically Artificial Intelligence (AI), with the values of the company in a transparent manner. To do this, they recommend marketers employ their ‘CONSIDER’ framework when implementing AI in their marketing operations. If this is done in a clear systematic fashion, then the use of AI to implement DEI into a firm’s marketing collateral can be profound, including greater accuracy, consistency and efficiency in the development of inclusive marketing material.

Just like the alignment between an organisation’s values and its DEI activities can influence the acceptance of its technology and marketing collateral, so too can this alignment influence a firm’s recruitment activities. To examine this in more detail, Alahakoon et al. (2024) conducted a systematic literature review of recruitment research over the past 30 years to gain an understanding of how DEI statements influence a firm’s recruitment strategy. However, unlike the other studies in this special issue, the research by Alahakoon et al. (2024) suggests DEI statements should be aligned with the broader, external environment, because stakeholders in the broader environment can exert influence on organisational practices that promote inequality. These findings are in line with prior research (Torrez et al., 2024) that found stakeholders outside an organisation can influence recruitment, based on personal biases and a lack of objectivity.

Rounding out the special issue are two articles that examine societal issues faced by members of the LGBTQ+ community. In the article by Smith et al. (2024), a review of research involving LGBTQ+ themes in social media was undertaken, with the findings showing the dominant, heteronormative narrative focuses on the culture surrounding male-to-male homosexuality. What is more, the narrative almost exclusively centres around issues of sexual health, education and testing for sexually transmitted disease. In the broader sense, these findings are quite confronting, given such a narrative highlights long-established stigmas for members of the LGBTQ+ community, and is unlikely to increase acceptance and inclusion across the broader population.

G. W. Oakenfull (2024) builds on this theme of identity and explores how LGBTQ+ identities and expressions evolve across generations. Importantly, Oakenfull suggests there is an increasing fluidity of sexual identity observed in younger generations and, consequently, new ways for individuals to express their sexual identity. Because of this, younger generations are more accepting of gender fluidity and various sexual orientations, and more willing to recognise and accept those who identify as such.

That is not to say marketers now have it easier. In fact, as Oakenfull so eloquently points out, as society in general, and marketers more specifically are called upon to navigate the complexities of ‘Genderation’ within the LGBTQ+ consumer marketplace, it is becoming increasingly evident that a one size-fits-all marketing approach will no longer be appropriate. This is a monumental change in public opinion and suggests a seismic shift for marketing. Prior research (G. K. Oakenfull & Greenlee, 2004) has suggested that if a brand is to include LGBTQ+ imagery in its advertising, the focus needs to be ‘lesbian, lesbian, lesbian’ to limit negative backlash from homophobic consumers. Two decades later, marketers must also consider the empowered sensibilities of LGBTQ+ consumers, especially Gen Z, who expect to be represented authentically and empathically to earn their loyalty.

No doubt, this increases the complexities for marketers when designing inclusive brand messages. However, it also provides opportunity to develop much more tailored, incredibly nuanced communications that potentially resonate on a much higher level with select segments of the population. That promises to be exciting for marketers, as new challenges are encountered, and new solutions identified that might increase diversity, equity and inclusivity in society.