An introduction to the “The role of inclusion, diversity, equity, & access (IDEA) in today’s global marketing environment” special issue

Despite the recent acceleration in business commitment to improve Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), inequalities linked to diversity and inclusion continue to persist (Bernstein et al., 2020). DEI incorporates procedural and distributive justice within society including organizations and institutions. DEI represents three elements: diversity, equity, and inclusion. Diversity exemplifies real or perceived differences between individuals with respect to demographic and socio-cultural differences such as sex, religion, race, ethnicity, age, physical or mental abilities, sexual orientation, thought, or economic background. Equity is predominantly concerned with fairness and impartiality in terms of both opportunities and outcomes. Finally, inclusion refers to the presence, belongingness, and incorporation of diverse groups particularly in spaces that were traditionally underrepresented or marginalized (Arsel et al., 2022; Bell et al., 2009; Johnson & Chichirau, 2020; Park et al., 2023)

While elements of DEI are important to improving overall societal wellbeing through variety of attempts encompassing business practices, cultural shifts, or governmental policies, an important aspect is missing involving access. Unequal access is still prevalent and disproportionally affects those from diverse backgrounds. For example, access to healthcare, housing safe from immediate effects of climate change, education, or job opportunities are still unequal (Larkin & Staton, 2001; Sherman et al., 2021; Tan, 2019; World Health Organization, 2020). For these reasons, we propose expanding DEI to IDEA. Building on Arsel et al. (2022), we define IDEA as a set of values and practices emphasizing inclusion, diversity, equity, and access represented by an active presence of different physical and socio-cultural groups with fair access to opportunities and outcomes. The purpose of the expanded umbrella of efforts from DEI to IDEA rests on the goal to foster fair treatment of people whether consumers, employees or, in general, members of society to access opportunities previously plagued by barriers within organizational, governmental, and social culture. Beyond the benefits to society, embracing these efforts offers opportunities to businesses which include appeal to more diverse audiences, an increase in competitive advantage, and the potential for valuable collaborative partnerships (Ferraro et al., 2023).

Unfortunately, achieving Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Access (IDEA) is a challenge for many marketers. Attempts to be inclusive can result in boycotts like that of Bud Light, which is capable of killing brands (Bernstein, 2023). At the same time, the lack of (perceived) access can prevent individuals from thriving (Hamed et al., 2022). Further, consider the challenges of achieving diversity given all of the types of ways that individuals can identify blind, queer, intellectually disabled, and so forth. This special issue was born from the recognition that too little marketing research has examined questions of IDEA.

Following a symposium on the topic of IDEA at the Society for Marketing Advances conference in 2022, an open call for papers was issued. Early forms of many, though not all, of the papers published here were first presented at the symposium. We were both surprised and encouraged by the diversity of topics that were submitted.

We begin with an assessment of the current state of inclusion, at least for the visually impaired. This first study is “Being Inclusive Means Being Accessible: Problems with Digital Media for Visually Impaired Consumers” by Mary Anne Raymond, Hillary Smith, and Les Carlson. In this descriptive study, they document the challenges in achieving accessibility. Their findings not only challenge the notion that regulations have “fixed the problem,” but also how far off marketers can be even when it is in their best interests to do better.

The special issue continues with two studies that focus on equity and branding. The first, “From Racialized Brands to Authentic Brands: Dynamic Conceptual Blending,” is by Carmina Cavazos, Esi Elliott, and Ai Chow. They examine the transformation of racialized brands into sustainable authentic brands, developing a fascinating framework. Racialized, to paraphrase, means to take on race issues directly as a brand. The questions they explore are whether a racialized brand is sustainable and how does authenticity support sustainability.

What happens, though, when a gendered brand takes on gender issues directly? That question is at the heart of the study presented by Laura Boman, Dolph Nelson, and Ganga Hewage, in their piece, “The Effect of Equity Initiatives by Gendered Brands.” As they point out, brands begin with an identity that could be gender-based (or race-based) and that identity is, by itself, blameless. But can those brands then argue for a more equitable world without harming the position they (want to) hold in the minds of their consumers?

Gender was also studied by Robert Evans, Jr., Ismail Karabas, Yana Andonova, and Leiza Nochebuena-Evans. In this interesting study of film, “Let’s Not Talk About Men: When Meaningful Female-to-Female Interaction and Dialogue Drive Higher Box Office Sales,” the effects of gender-based content are examined. Applying the Bechdel test to popular movies, they find that market preference, in the form of box office revenue, supports gender equity. Taken in the context of the previous article, this study illustrates a direct impact regarding the portrayal of women.

Similar in the sense that they study consumer response is the study by Joanne Tran and Landon McFarland, “Antecedents and Consequences of the Disability Stigma for Frontline Employees: A Qualitative Study.” Based on their qualitative study, they develop a framework for understanding how disabled employees are both perceived by consumers and integrated into firms. Like many of the studies in this issue, the framework is just the beginning, so much more work is needed but at least, there is now a place to start.

An additional study in this issue was “Effects of Empathy and Egoism on CSR Perceptions and Consumer Boycotts: Lessons Learned during Global Crisis in Support of Equitable Business Practices” by Ania Rynarzewska, Steve LeMay, Marilyn Helms, and Eliza Hetrick. This article examines the relationships among egoism, empathy, and consumer interest in social topics during a global crisis which disproportionally affected vulnerable populations, low-income and economically disadvantaged individuals. Specifically, consumer interest topics focused on employee safety, environmental protection, and equality. They assessed how psychologically linked motivations and interest might affect consumer perceptions of corporate social responsibility and consumer boycott. With consumer boycotts threatening the economic wellbeing of organizations, their findings suggest that businesses that align with current social issues linked to equity are more likely to be supported by consumer boycott.

The issue wraps up with Somjit Barat’s “A Micro-level Perspective to Fostering IDEAs in the Classroom and Beyond.” This paper presents both a rich literature review and a framework for class projects to promote an appreciation for IDEA.

As we said at the outset, we were heartened by the diversity of work represented in the submissions. More importantly, we are excited because so many of these works represent the headwaters of research streams, important because of their contributions to IDEA. The guest editors want to thank both the Society for Marketing Advances and the Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science for their willingness to start the conversation regarding research on IDEA topics. We look forward to seeing future research on this important topic.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).