Abstract
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to offers the authors’ perspective on a problem rarely considered by those making strategic decisions: conflicting laws at different levels of jurisdiction, specifically those related to stigmatized products.Design/methodology/approachThe authors use as examples of product categories from marijuana to single-use plastic bags, describing the conflicting laws that add to costs for marketers and consumers.FindingsThe authors find that conflicting laws add to the uncertainty, legal expenses, and therefore, the cost of marketing a stigmatized product, whether stigmatized because of its impact on the environment, on health or on moral grounds.Research limitations/implicationsThe examples are not exhaustive, but their implications are significant: that as state legislatures are preempting local bans, Congress may preempt state laws.Originality/valueThis paper adds one more complexity to decision-making in the area of products to offer and/or merger/acquisition decisions that may bring company products that face conflicting laws.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
