Neuromarketing: Ethical Implications of its Use and Potential Misuse Steven J. Stanton 1 • Walter Sinnott-Armstrong 2 • Scott A. Huettel 3 Received: 26 October 2014 / Accepted: 28 January 2016 Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016 Abstract Neuromarketing is an emerging field in which academic and industry research scientists employ neuro- science techniques to study marketing practices and consumer behavior. The use of neuroscience techniques, it is argued, facilitates a more direct understanding of how brain states and other physiological mechanisms are related to consumer behavior and decision making. Herein, we will articulate common ethical concerns with neuromarketing as currently practiced, focusing on the potential risks to consumers and the ethical decisions faced by companies. We argue that the most frequently raised concerns—threats to consumer autonomy, privacy, and control—do not rise to meaningful ethical issues given the current capabilities and implementation of neuro- marketing research. But, we identify how potentially serious ethical issues may emerge from neuromarketing research practices in industry, which are largely proprietary and opa- que. We identify steps that can mitigate associated ethical risks and thus reduce the threats to consumers. We conclude that neuromarketing has clear potential for positive impact on society and consumers, a fact rarely considered in the dis- cussion on the ethics of neuromarketing. Keywords Consumer behavior Á Decision making Á Ethics Á Hormones Á fMRI Á Marketing Á Neuromarketing Á Neuroscience Commercial Alert, a consumer advocacy group, sent a letter to the president of Emory University in 2003 alleging that neuromarketing is a significant risk to consumers and that Emory University should immediately halt all study of neuromarketing (Grey et al. 2003). In the letter, signed by academics and leaders of non-profit consumer advocacy groups, the authors state, Emory’s quest for a ‘‘buy button’’ in the human skull is an egregious violation of the very reason that a university exists. It also likely violates the principles of the Belmont Report, which sets out guidelines for research on human subjects in the United States. They go on to note, The real risk of neuromarketing research is to the people—including children—who are the real targets of this research. Already, marketing is deeply impli- cated in a host of pathologies. The nation is in the midst of an epidemic of marketing-related diseases. The authors then end the letter with this request, 1) Forbid the BrightHouse Institute [a research group affiliated with Emory faculty], or any other entity, from using any Emory University property, equip- ment, office space or facilities, including its MRI, for the purposes of conducting neuromarketing research; and, 2) Publicly release Emory University’s Institutional Review Board reviews of the neuromarketing research. & Steven J. Stanton stantonii@oakland.edu Walter Sinnott-Armstrong walter.sinnott-armstrong@duke.edu Scott A. Huettel scott.huettel@duke.edu 1 School of Business Administration, Oakland University, 420 Elliott Hall, 2200 N. Squirrel Rd., Rochester, MI 48309, USA 2 Kenan Institute for Ethics, Duke University, 203B West Duke Building, Box 90432, Durham, NC 27708, USA 3 Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA 123 J Bus Ethics DOI 10.1007/s10551-016-3059-0