Western Companies' Responses to Consumer Product Boycotts in Saudi Arabia - Research Proposal Example

RESEARCH PROPOSAL PRO-FORMA (Issue 5) THIS RESEARCH PROPOSAL IS DESIGNED TO GIVE THE KEY SECTIONS THAT HAVE TO BE COMPLETED FOR A SUCCESSFUL PROPOSAL. STUDENT NAME: STUDENT NUMBER: TITLE OF THE RESEARCH PROPOSAL: A Critical Assessment of Western Companies' Responses to Consumer Product Boycotts in Saudi Arabia DEADLINE: APRIL 2014 SECTION 1: THE RESEARCH TOPIC 1a What is your research topic about? The research topic is about the responses of Western companies to boycotts of their products or services by consumers in Saudi Arabia. One of the most well-known of these boycotts was the boycott launched against the Danish dairy food company Arla in 2005, after the publication in a Danish newspaper of a series of cartoons deemed offensive to Islam. There have been other boycotts affected a number of other companies as well, such as McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, and KFC. The boycotts have been called for a number of reasons; companies have been boycotted because of religious offence (like in the Arla Foods case), for political reasons (such as widespread boycotts of companies because of their home countries’ support for Israel), or for mistakes made by the companies themselves which caused some social or religious offence. Many of the boycotts have extended beyond Saudi Arabia into other countries in the Middle East; however, this research will focus solely on Saudi Arabia, as it is the largest individual consumer market in the region, and considered a religious and political leader amongst the other Islamic Middle East countries. 1b What is the issue/problem that your proposal addresses and why is it important to the reader? The main issue of the research is how companies overcome the negative effects of these boycotts. Obviously, a boycott can be very damaging to a company’s sales and profits, and in the long-term, hurt the company’s reputation. The history of boycotts in Saudi Arabia suggests that a company could face one of two problems: A boycott of its products or services through some error on the company’s part, which requires one sort of strategy to overcome, or a boycott due to circumstances beyond its control (that is, simply by being associated with a country that is perceived to have caused a religious or other sort of offence), which would require a somewhat different sort of strategy. The issue is important to the reader because it provides knowledge about cross-cultural management and marketing and crisis management, whether the companies involved have been successful in overcoming the negative effects or not. Those that have been successful can provide clues as to how other companies might also successfully overcome similar situations. 1c Why is the topic of interest to you? The topic is of interest to me because of its relevance to international business, and the prospects of learning something that will be directly useful to me in the future. The particular part of the topic that interests me the most is how companies have managed boycotts which were caused by something they had no control over, such as in the Arla Foods case, because this seems like a particularly difficult and challenging situation for any business to face. SECTION 2: RESEARCH AIMS, QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIVES 2a Research Aim(s) / Purpose (See Output 1) The primary aim of this research is to investigate and compare the strategies used by various companies that have been the victims of consumer boycotts in Saudi Arabia, and to develop conclusions that lead to recommendations of “best practises” for companies that may find themselves in similar circumstances in the future. Secondary aims of this research include: Investigating the causes of consumer boycotts; analysing the differences between boycotts caused by different things (that is, boycotts caused by some perceived action of the company versus boycotts caused by circumstances outside the company’s control); and analysing the effect the responses to the boycotts have on the companies’ home markets. 2b Research Questions/Sub Questions (See Output 1) Main Research Question: How successful are Western companies’ strategies in overcoming consumer boycotts of their products or services in Saudi Arabia? Secondary Research Questions: 1) 2) What were the causes of boycotts in Saudi Arabia and which companies were affected? 2) What were the effects of these boycotts in terms of company performance (revenue, market share)? 3) What strategies were employed by the companies to try to overcome the boycotts? 4) What were the reactions of the Saudi consumer market to these strategies? 5) What were the reactions of the companies’ home markets to these strategies? 6) What were the results of these strategies in terms of company performance (revenue, market share)? 2c Research Objectives (See Output 1) 1) To thoroughly analyse the causes, company responses to, market responses to, and final outcomes of consumer boycotts of Western companies, products, or services in Saudi Arabia. 2) To develop, from the research, a model or set of generalised “best practises” that the research indicates are most effective in responding to consumer boycotts. 2d Key theories/Conceptual Models considered/used to address your topic In terms of understanding differences in culture and social perspectives between companies’ home markets (which largely determine the characteristics and perspectives of the companies) and the Saudi market, the research is informed by Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions, and Luhmann’s Social Systems Theory. Complexity Theory aids in understanding the complicated interactions between companies, stakeholders, and home and foreign markets in boycott and other crisis situations. In terms of understanding company strategies and responses to boycotts, Situational Crisis Communications Theory (found in Coombs & Holladay, 2002; Coombs, 2007, 2010; and elsewhere) provides a framework for identifying and comparing components of company response strategies. SECTION 3 KEY LITERATURE (Increase the size of these sections if necessary) 3a Main themes (& supporting citations) being discussed on your Topic in the Literature (See Output 2) The literature review proceeds along two separate lines of inquiry; first, there are the analyses of various boycott events and company reactions to them, and second, there is the literature addressing the theoretical frameworks that apply to this research. For the first line of inquiry, the well-known Arla Foods boycott is addressed by a number of studies, including Rynning and Schmidt (2006); Knight, Gao, and Mitchell (2007); Al-Sawalhy, Osman, and Soleiman (2008), who compare the boycott to several others against Danish and Dutch companies in the Middle East; Maamoun and Aggarwal (2008); and Gaither and Curtin (2008). Other studies focusing on consumer boycotts, either taking place in Saudi Arabia, elsewhere in the Middle East, or in other parts of the world under similar conditions (i.e., for similar reasons) include Weiss, 2007; Davis and Meunier (2011); Clerides, Davis, and Michis (2012); and Yunus, et al. (2013). Literature that examines boycotts from the perspective of consumer markets includes Sohail (2004), who relates consumer perceptions of products to country images; Albayati, et al. (2012), who describe consumer participation in boycotts as largely determined by a balance between social concerns and demand intensity for the products or services; and Al Ghanideh and Al Taee (2012), who find that boycotts are supported by generally strong ethnocentrism among Arab consumers. Seeking theoretical foundations that explain the actions of consumer markets in boycotts leads us to the work of Luhmann (1983 and 1989), which defines social systems, such as country, religious affiliation, economic class, ethnic group, and so on, to help identify the categorisation of consumer markets in the studies cited above. Leydesdorff (2000) connects social systems to some extent with the cultural dimensions of Hofstede; Sellenow, Seger, and Ullmer (2002) and Hendry and Seidl (2003) introduce complexity and chaos theory to help define changeability in consumer markets under stress, and begin to establish a framework for strategic responses by companies. 3b Main arguments (& supporting citations) where authors agree/disagree on your Topic (See Output 2) Much of the theoretical framework for company responses to boycotts is found in communication theory. Suedfeld and Tetlock (1977) provide an early foundation for complexity in communications, which is built upon later by Stichweh (2000). Stichweh connects communications theory to systems theory, but here is where the one significant disagreement in the literature relevant to the topic occurs, because it largely the work of Coombs (with Holladay, 2002; 2007; 2010) which illustrates ways in which complexity can be reduced – i.e., where communications can be separated from the environment of systems in which it exists – and treated as a methodology through situational crisis communications theory. Throughout most of the literature reviewed so far in preparation for this proposal, there is a noticeable lack of other disagreement or presentation of alternative ideas on consumer behaviour, or the components of communication. However, situational crisis communication theory, as explained above, departs from the interconnected, building-on-earlier-work nature of the other literature. SECTION 4 METHODOLOGY 4a Alternative methodologies considered (See Research Onion) (See Output 3) The topic of the research suggests that case study methodology might be appropriate, as each of the number of boycott incidents could be treated individually. This approach, however, is felt to be too narrative; it would be of value in terms of producing a detailed record of boycotts and company response strategies, but insufficient in terms of synthesising an overall model of crisis communication strategy and practise. By the same token, a strictly quantitative study is not indicated; the response of companies to boycotts is a dependent variable, certainly, but it is dependent on a essentially a behavioural phenomenon, which is itself heavily dependent on subjective factors – thus, there would be a serious question about the validity of the results of this sort of methodology for this subject. 4b Actual Methodology that you plan to use (See Output 3) The research will follow a mixed methodology, combining qualitative case study analysis of the boycotts, the company response strategies, and the market reactions to these strategies with an empirical analysis of the outcomes using some common metrics – primarily revenue, profit margin, and market share – to correlate changes in these to particular response actions taken by the affected companies. 4c Justification for the Methodology that you plan to use (See Output 3) Because the objective of the study is to determine if there is a model of consumer boycott response strategy that can be developed, in order to give the expected model a sufficient validity, some objective evidence of its effectiveness must be given, rather than the subjective conclusions that a strictly qualitative approach would provide. Therefore, some statistical analysis is important to achieve the expected outcomes of the research. SECTION 5 RESEARCH TIMETABLE Insert a Gantt Chart showing all the actions to complete your dissertation, beginning and end dates of each action and length of time to complete each action Research Project Work Plan/Gantt Chart Task Days 10-Mar 17-Mar 24-Mar 31-Mar 7-Apr 14-Apr 21-Apr 28-Apr 5-May 12-May 19-May 26-May Complete Research Proposal 19         Submitted 5 Apr Literature Review 56         2-Jun 9-Jun 16-Jun 23-Jun 7-Jul 14-Jul 21-Jul 28-Jul 4-Aug 11-Aug 18-Aug 25-Aug Literature Review (cont'd) 56       Complete 30 Jun Data Analysis 31 Begin 1 Jul       Complete Draft Paper 31 Begin 1 Aug       1-Sep 8-Sep 15-Sep 22-Sep 29-Sep 6-Oct Submit Draft for Review 1-Sep Complete Final Paper 16     Ready by 1 Oct 6 SECTION 6. RESEARCH ETHICS APPROVAL FORM Read the Middlesex University Research Ethics Guidelines ATTACH HERE the completed Research Ethics Approval Form following your web-assessment of your research topic (see section 1.7 in the module handbook) RESEARCH ETHICS APPROVAL FROM NAME OF RESEARCHER: Ref: NAMES OF ANY RESEARCH COLLABORATORS: N/A PROPOSED TITLE OF RESEARCH PROJECT: A Critical Assessment of Western Companies' Responses to Consumer Product Boycotts in Saudi Arabia BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE MAIN AIMS OF THE STUDY: To investigate and compare the strategies used by various companies that have been the victims of consumer boycotts in Saudi Arabia, and to determine whether commonality in these strategies constitutes a model of “best practises” for companies that may find themselves in similar circumstances in the future. HAVE YOU READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE UNIVERITY’S CODE OF PRACTICE FOR RESEARCH: PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES? Yes IS THIS STUDY A LITERATURE REVIEW (LIBRARY STUDY) WHICH DOES NOT INVOLVE COLLECTING PRIMARY DATA? No, some primary data will likely have to be collected from affected companies directly. WILL YOUR RESEARCH INVOLVE: a) CONDUCTING INTERVIEWS? No b) PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION? No c) USE OF QUESTIONNAIRE(S) WHICH YOU HAVE DESIGNED? No d) FOCUS GROUPS? No e) OBSERVATION? No WILL YOU OBTAIN WRITTEN INFORMED CONSENT DIRECTLY FROM RESEACH PARTICIPANTS? Yes, in the cases where company financial statement disclosures not otherwise easily accessible through public channels may be requested. DO YOU INTEND TO OFFER INCENTIVES TO RESEACH PARTICIPANTS? No WILL YOU INFORM PARTICIPANTS OF THEIR RIGHT TO WITHDRAW FROM THE RESEARCH AT ANY TIME? Yes WILL YOU GUARANTEE CONFIDENTILITY OF INFORMATION TO PATICIPANTS? No; any information sought will be information that is already required by law to be publicly disclosed, therefore confidentiality will not be an issue. WILL YOU GUARANTEE ANONYMITY TO PARTICIPANTS? No DOES YOUR RESEARCH METHODOLOGY RAISE ANY SAFETY/LEGAL ISSUES FOR YOU OR YOUR PARTICIPANTS? No DO YOU HAVE ANY ETHICAL CONCERNS ABOUT THIS RESEARCH PROJECT? No STAFF DECLARATION THE INFORMATION GIVEN ON THIS FROM IS TRUE TO THE BEST MY KNOWLEDGE. I HAVE TAKEN NOTE OF APPROPRIATE GUIDELINES IN DESIGNING MY RESEARCH APPRECIATING THE NEED TO KEEP ETHICAL ISSUES UNDER REVIEW DURING THE RESEARCH PROCESS. {THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS SHOULD BE TICKED AS APPROPRIATE.} a) I DO NOT THINK THAT MY PROPOSED RESEARCH RAISES ANY ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE CONSIDERED BY SRCEP. b) I HAVE REFERRED /WILL REFER MY PROPOSED RESEARCH TO SRCEP FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION. c) THIS PROPOSAL HAS BEEN APPROVED BY SRCEP. SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH_______________________ DATE________________ Please print this from and complete the declaration above. You may also want to save copy for your records. SECTION 7 REFERENCES 7 Full references for all Citations in the proposal (Minimum of 20 books, chapters and/or Journals) Albayati, M.S., Nik Mat, N.K., Musaibah, A.S., Aldhaafri, H.S., and Almatari, E.M. (2012) “Participate In Boycott Activities Toward Danish Products From The Perspective Of Muslim Consumer”. American Journal of Economics, June 2012: 120-124. Al Ganideh, S.F., and Al Taee, H. (2012) “Examining Consumer Ethnocentrism amongst Jordanians from an Ethnic Group Perspective”. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 4(1): 48-57. Al-Sawalhy, H.A., Osman, A.Z., and Soleiman, N.Y. (2008) “The Economic Impacts Resulted from the Arab and Islamic Countries’ Boycott of the Danish and Dutch Exports of Dairy Products: a Case Study Applied to Egypt and Saudi Arabia”. Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 4(12): 1730-1737. Clerides, S., Davis, P. and Michis, A. (2012) “The Impact of the Iraq War on U.S. Consumer Goods Sales in Arab Countries”. Rimini Centre for Economic Analysis Working Paper Series. Coombs, W.T., and Holladay, S.J. (2002) “Helping Crisis Managers Protect Reputational Assets: Initial Tests of the Situational Crisis Communication Theory”. Management Communication Quarterly, 16(2): 165-186. Coombs, W.T. (2007) “Protecting Organization Reputations During a Crisis: The Development and Application of Situational Crisis Communication Theory”. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3): 163-176. Coombs, W.T. (2010) “Parameters for Crisis Communication”. In: Coombs, W.T., and Holladay, S.J. (Eds.), The Handbook of Crisis Communication. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 16-53. Davis, C.L., and Meunier, S. (2011) “Business as Usual? Economic Responses to Political Tensions”. American Journal of Political Science, 55(3): 628-646. Gaither, T.K., and Curtin, P.A. (2008) “Examining the Heuristic Value of Models of International Public Relations Practice: A Case Study of the Arla Foods Crisis”. Journal of Public Relations Research, 20: 115-137. Hendry, J., and Seidl, D. (2003) “The Structure and Significance of Strategic Episodes: Social Systems Theory and the Routine Practices of Strategic Change”. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1): 175-196. Knight, J. G., Mitchell, B., and Gao, H. (2007) “Cartoons chaos: Dealing with turmoil in International markets”. Proceedings of the Australia and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference, Dunedin, New Zealand, December 2007. Leydesdorff, L. (2000) “Luhmann, Habermas, and the Theory of Communication”. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 17(3): 273-288. Luhmann, N. (1983) “Insistence on Systems Theory: Perspectives from Germany – An Essay”. Social Forces, 61(4): 987-998. Luhmann, N. (1989) “Law as a Social System”. Northwestern University Law Review, 83(1/2): 136-150. Maamoun, A., and Aggarwal, P. (2008) “Guilty By Association: The Boycotting Of Danish Products In The Middle East”. Journal of Business Case Studies, 4(10): 35-41. Rynning, S., and Schmidt, C.H. (2006) “Muhammad Cartoons in Denmark: From Freedom of Speech to Denmark’s Biggest International Crisis Since 1945”. UNISCI Discussion Papers No. 11, May 2006. Sellenow, T.L., Seeger, M.W., and Ulmer, R.R. (2002) “Chaos theory, informational needs, and natural disasters”. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30(4): 269-292. Sohail, S. M. (2004) “Saudi Consumer's Perceptions of Foreign Products in the new Millenium: An Analysis of Country Images”. Proceedings of Second Conference on Administrative Sciences, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, April, 2004. Stichweh, R. (2000) “Systems Theory as an Alternative to Action Theory? The Rise of ‘Communication’ as a Theoretical Option”. Acta Sociologica, 43: 5-13. Suedfeld, P., and Tetlock, P. (1977) “Integrative Complexity of Communications in International Crises”. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 21(1): 169-184. Weiss, M.A. (2007) “Arab League Boycott of Israel”. CRS Report for Congress, RL33961, April 2007. Yunus, A.M., Ghani, A.A., Man, S., Mohamad, M., and Wan Chik, W.M.Y. (2013) “An Analysis of Fiqh al-Waqi` (An Understanding of Contemporary Problems) on the Ruling of Compulsory Boycott of KFC (Malaysia)”. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(1): 194-202. Read More