Article

Marketing Theory
2016, Vol. 16(2) 232–249
A blueprint for ª The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
sustainability marketing: DOI: 10.1177/1470593115609796
mtq.sagepub.com
Defining its conceptual
boundaries for progress

Weng Marc Lim

Monash University, Malaysia

Abstract
Sustainability marketing is a provocative area of research. Through an integrated knowledge
inquiry approach, the conceptual article aims to provide answers to the feasibility of a joint
application of sustainability and marketing and a blueprint for future sustainability marketing
studies and practices. Five issues pertaining to the credibility and ambiguity of sustainability
marketing are addressed—namely, the controversial debate between the incompatibility of
marketing and sustainability, what sustainability offers marketing, what marketing offers sus-
tainability, the feasibility of adopting the sustainability concept in marketing, and sustainability
marketing myopia. Then, the article identifies a set of dimensions that characterize sustainability
marketing, including economic, environmental, social, ethical, and technological dimensions.
Unlike previous studies that often focus on only selected dimensions, the current article makes
the case to consider the five identified dimensions as a whole to achieve greater sustainability.
The article is also the first to incorporate two new dimensions into the sustainability marketing
model: (1) the ethical dimension, in which a proposed synthesis among consequentialism,
deontology, and virtue ethics is argued to contribute to the sustainability agenda and (2) the
technological dimension, in which the innovation and use of technology is argued to enable
communication and education of sustainability and the creation or cocreation of alternatives or
solutions that contribute to greater sustainability. Remarks on the proposed blueprint and
suggestions for further research conclude the article.

Keywords
Economic, environmental, ethical, marketing, social, sustainability, technological

Corresponding author:
Weng Marc Lim, School of Business, Monash University, Jalan Lagoon Selatan, 46150 Bandar Sunway, Selangor Darul Ehsan,
Malaysia.
Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]
Lim 233

Introduction
Progressing meaningfully toward sustainability requires radical solutions that go beyond devel-
oping new products and product substitutions in the marketplace to establishing a holistic approach
that promotes and encourages the acceptance and adoption of sustainable practices (Peattie and
Peattie, 2009). Several marketing academics have called for a shift in the way scholars approach
and conduct marketing and transformative consumer research (Mick et al., 2012), in which sus-
tainability marketing would be a part. Webster (2009) observes that most research in marketing is
data driven, rather than theory driven, which may result in piecemeal understanding of sustain-
ability issues in marketing, thus highlighting a need for a sound theory base that enables a holistic
understanding of the interplay between sustainability and marketing and that offers theoretical
support for data-driven empirical investigations.
In research focusing on sustainability marketing, three common shortcomings are apparent:
studies (1) emphasize environmental issues but confusingly interchange sustainability marketing
with ecological marketing (Fisk, 1974), green marketing (Charter, 1992; Ottman, 1993), and
environmental marketing (Coddington, 1992), (2) offer a one-sided focus on sustainable organi-
zational practices, with profit-oriented and long-term survival goals being primary and socio-
environmental concerns being secondary (Connelly et al., 2011), or (3) focus on selected areas that
contribute to the sustainability agenda and not sustainability marketing as a whole (e.g. indi-
vidual focus on either economic, environmental, or social dimensions rather than a collective
focus) (e.g. Nolan and Varey, 2014; Peattie and Peattie, 2009). Furthermore, existing literature is
unclear on the notion of sustainability and the ethical social responsibilities it entails (Garcia-
Rosell and Moisander, 2008). For example, sustainability and ethical social responsibilities
are often interpreted differently by different people (Crane, 2000; Crane and Matten, 2004), and
examples of ethical social responsibilities (e.g. corporate social responsibility) continue to be
contested (Bondy et al., 2012). Furthermore, studies on sustainability marketing have largely
neglected the changes that technology has brought to every aspect of marketing and consumer
culture, including how the issues of sustainability in consumption and marketing management
can be addressed.1 As a consequence, both marketing researchers and practitioners struggle to
understand how the principles of sustainability can be integrated successfully into marketing
practice (Greenfield, 2004). In this context, societies that aspire to make meaningful advances
toward greater sustainability, such as to maintain a sound ecosystem in a concerted manner, often
face the following question: How can they harmonize distinct and contradictory societal
demands, both of which are justified?
To answer this question, this conceptual article offers an integrated knowledge inquiry
approach—that is, creation of essential questions about a topic and exploration of their solutions—
as a new mode of thinking to solve sustainability dilemmas. To do so, the article presents an
original transconceptual blueprint, or a proposed research strategy that crosses many conceptual
boundaries, to create a holistic approach for sustainability research in the marketing discipline,
which is the main contribution of this article. More important, the multidimensional blueprint
should address the problems arising from a unidimensional focus on sustainability, such as limited
contribution or relevance to the dominant social paradigm of goods and service reproduction or
overreliance on mainstream commercial marketing (Aitken et al., 2006; Peattie and Peattie, 2003;
Kilbourne, 2004).
The article begins with a review of the history and existing notions of sustainability marketing.
Then, the article addresses five issues pertaining to the credibility and ambiguity of sustainability
234 Marketing Theory 16(2)

marketing: (1) the controversial debate between the incompatibility of marketing and sustainability,
(2) what sustainability offers marketing, (3) what marketing offers sustainability, (4) the feasibility
of adopting the sustainability concept in marketing, and (5) the sustainability marketing myopia.
Next, the article makes a novel contribution by tying this concept to ethical and technological
approaches that have not been historically linked to sustainability marketing, after which it pre-
sents a new blueprint for future sustainability research in marketing. The article concludes by
offering reasons for optimism regarding sustainability marketing practices and future research
directions that should advance the insights derived herein.

Sustainability in the marketing literature

The term ‘‘sustainable development’’ was introduced by the Brundtland Commission and defined
as ‘‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs’’ (World Commission on Environment and Development,
1987: 43). Today, the concept of sustainability plays an important role in evaluating not only
economic and social development but also business (marketing) activity more generally (Crane
and Matten, 2004).
However, defining the concept of ‘‘sustainability marketing’’ is not straightforward, as
contrasting meanings are present. First, the concept of ‘‘marketing’’ itself has contrasting
meanings. According to practice, marketing encourages consumers to purchase things they do
not need by presenting products in such a way as to make them desirable (Palmer, 2012). In
contrast, the academic perspective views marketing as playing a vital role in identifying and
meeting customer needs profitably, and it marshals resources to meet the changing needs of
customers, so that customers and the satisfaction of their needs are central to marketing activities
(Jones et al., 2008). Regardless of these contrasting meanings, the adverse effects of marketing
cannot be neglected, and thus the article argues that a blueprint for sustainability marketing
practice is necessary.
Second, the concentration of ‘‘sustainability’’ itself varies in marketing literature. One set of
definitions on sustainability recognizes that people live in a world with limited natural resources
and fragile ecosystems, thus focusing on the ability to maintain what is valued in the ecosystem
(i.e. the environmental perspective) (Jones et al., 2008; Sutton, 2004), while the other set views
sustainability more ambitiously by including social and economic goals that meet human needs
equitably (i.e. the socioeconomic perspective) (Jones et al., 2008; McCann-Erickson, 2002). A
shortcoming here, however, is that the sustainability crisis is not caused by a single or selected set
of factors but by a multitude of factors—for example, collective effects of economic, environ-
mental, social, ethical, and technological factors.
Although gaining a comprehensive view of such problems, let alone solving them, is difficult,
efforts to provide an all-inclusive view on the notion of sustainability and how it complements
marketing are vital for a better tomorrow. The article argues that to acquire a holistic con-
ceptualization of sustainability marketing, knowledge structuring (as an end result of problem
structuring) is an essential first step toward this endeavor. The problems sustainability and mar-
keting confront are not only complex but also interconnected. Thus, if scholars are to find solu-
tions, the relationships between these concepts must first be clarified. In the next section, the article
attempts to engage in problem structuring by examining the controversial debate of the incom-
patibility of marketing and sustainability.
Lim 235

Is marketing an antithesis of sustainability?

Many people believe that marketing and sustainability are as different as ‘‘chalk and cheese’’ and
continue to vilify the discipline of marketing for its role in driving the growth in global con-
sumption (Jones et al., 2008; Peattie and Peattie, 2009), whereas others focus on the potential for
marketing to contribute solutions, as evinced by the growing synergies between the two concepts
(Ferdous, 2010). For example, Nika Water, a San Diego-based bottled water company, produces
environmentally friendly bottled water and has positioned itself in the global marketplace as an
environmentally and socially responsible corporate citizen operating toward the cause of sus-
tainability. The company also donates profits to programs to bring clean water and sanitation to
underdeveloped countries, pledges to plant a tree for every four cases of bottled water sold, and
works with schools and waste management companies on recycling programs (Williams, 2012).
Nonetheless, despite an increasing presence of initiatives to leverage marketing toward the
promotion of sustainable practices (Kotler, 2011), and notwithstanding the niche market of
environmentalist (Laroche et al., 2001), many researchers continue to find strong consumer
resistance to the purchase and consumption of products that reduce both the carbon footprint of
their actions and current consumption patterns (e.g. Chernatony et al., 2000; Cherrier et al., 2012).
In most instances, products featuring sustainability attributes (e.g. friendly to the environment and
ethical) only matter if other more salient product elements not only are present but also meet
consumer expectations (e.g. good quality and taste) (Jagel et al., 2012; Lim et al., 2014). Failure to
account for these considerations may cause the attitude/intention–behavior gap to become more
prominent (Carrington et al., 2014; Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006). Thus, given the previous argu-
ments that marketing is not an antithesis to sustainability but rather a vehicle to realize the sus-
tainability agenda, the challenge now is to identify how marketing and sustainability can be
synergized to foster desired behavioral change and normalize sustainable practices (Rettie et al.,
2012; Thogersen and Zhou, 2012).

What does sustainability offer marketing?

A growing number of organizations worldwide are recognizing the role of sustainability as an
integral component of their business strategies and operations (Peattie, 2001). Governmental
efforts are also taking place to formulate regulation and legislation to enforce sustainable efforts
(Nawang, 2012). Jones et al. (2008) add support to these notions by identifying the many factors
hastening this trend—namely, the need to comply with a growing volume of environmental and
social legislation and regulation, concerns about the cost and scarcity of natural resources, greater
public and shareholder awareness of the importance of socially responsible investments and
practices, growing media coverage for the activities of various anticorporate pressure groups, and
more general changes in consumer social attitudes and values in modern capitalist societies.
Therefore, sustainability no longer resides on the outskirts but rather is at the center of many
organizational and governmental strategic efforts.
Attaining sustainability, however, could lead firms to transfer costs to end consumers, who are
resource constrained and, therefore, may be unable to afford such additional burdens resulting from
sustainability (Charter et al., 2002). Nonetheless, a closer inquiry reveals several strong arguments
on what sustainability can offer marketing. First, sustainability ensures long-term business success
while contributing to economic and social development, a healthy environment, and a stable
society (Cleene and Wood, 2004). According to Nkamnebe (2011), the demand for sustainability
236 Marketing Theory 16(2)

has emerged as a tool for accessing and controlling global resources, and firms and societies that
choose to ignore it may be treading a path toward failure and underdevelopment. In particular,
engaging in sustainable practices (1) helps firms save costs and increase productivity by reducing
environmental impacts and attaining lower staff turnover; (2) presents entrance into new markets
through environmental improvements and benefits to the local community and economy;
(3) reduces risk through engagement with stakeholders; (4) builds reputation by increasing envi-
ronmental efficiency; (5) develops human capital through better human resource management;
(6) improves access to capital through better governance; and (7) creates additional opportunities
from community development, ecofriendly offerings, and sustainable behaviors (Prakash-Mani
et al., 2002).
Second, the concept of sustainability is a global approach to securing lasting welfare for the
human race and its ecosystem (Nkamnebe, 2011). Therefore, sustainability affords marketing an
all-encompassing perspective through two distinct arguments: one pragmatic and the other ethical.
The pragmatic argument states that because the global society is complex and interlinked, out-
comes in one area of interest cannot be delivered effectively and efficiently without accounting for
other happenings in the rest of the ‘‘system’’—the social and environmental spheres (Elkington,
1999; Sutton, 2004). For example, the sale of products and services in the long run may depend in
part on the health of society and the environment. The ethical argument suggests that if firms care
about their immediate consumers and others in the ecosystem, they should pay attention to their
welfare because it is affected by all aspects of the system in which they live. Thus, sustainability
offers marketing a win-win situation, presenting value cocreation that can be maintained over time,
which is in line with the core concept on which marketing is based (Vargo and Lusch, 2004).

What does marketing offer sustainability?

In the wake of increasing initiatives to drive sustainability, the debate over which discipline best
fits and complements the concept of sustainability has presented one of the largest contemporary
conundrums vexing both academics and practitioners. In an interview with Davey (2010), Robert
Nuttall, who helped devise and implement the brand communication strategy for Marks &
Spencer’s Plan A campaign, explained that sustainability resides in many different places in an
organization; it resides in marketing, corporate communications, corporate responsibility, and
finance; thus, one of the challenges for organizations is that sustainability is quite fragmented in
terms of responsibility. Conversely, in an interview with Costa (2010) for Marketing Week, Keith
Weed, Unilever’s new chief marketing and communications officer, voiced that sustainability
strategies are best delivered through marketing because facilitation of sustainable production and
consumption efforts are inherent responsibilities of the marketing department. Thus, the challenge
is to understand the role of marketing in changing consumer behavior, such as by influencing
perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, actual behavior, and business perspectives, to move toward sus-
tainability (Jones et al., 2008). Several key arguments exist in support of the significance of
marketing for sustainability.
First, marketers are often in direct contact with all stakeholders of an organization (Merrilees
et al., 2005), meaning that marketing is at the forefront of recognizing the key role of all stake-
holders in the decision-making process (Clulow, 2005). Therefore, marketers can often focus on
understanding and changing organizational behavior, through internal marketing, or consumer
behavior, through marketing campaigns and marketing mix strategies (Andreasen, 2002; George,
1990; Yoo et al., 2000). For example, if a firm’s target market is confused about the concept of
Lim 237

sustainability, marketers can clarify the claims and labeling the organization endorses, such as
clarifying the difference between a green claim and greenwash (Lim and Ting, 2011)
Second, the discipline of marketing has a trajectory of theoretical and practical improvements.
The multitudes of theories and practices in marketing are constantly evolving to address new trends
and events in the marketplace, both locally and globally (Doyle, 1995; Lusch, 2007). Because
marketing develops strategies on the basis of analyses of consumers, competitors, and other
environmental forces, which it then combines with other strategic inputs (e.g. financial, research
and development, and human resources) to arrive at an integrated holistic strategic blueprint
(Jobber, 2010), marketing is a natural home for the advancement of greater sustainability through
the development of increasingly sound marketing strategies, especially as it strives for functional
and successful relationships with all stakeholders in the marketplace and ecosystem.
Third, arguments about changing behavior and harnessing creativity and innovation are typi-
cally couched in growth jargon (Jones et al., 2008), which is often considered one of the char-
acteristic hallmarks of marketing (Hauser et al., 2006; Schmitt, 1999). Jo Kenrick, chair of The
Marketing Society, echoed this notion that innovation is the bread and butter of all marketers, and
thus it makes business sense for the marketing discipline to assume responsibility for sustainability
and its promotion (Kenrick, 2012). Claims that marketing sustainability prevents growth are
therefore not profound because marketing’s creative and innovative nature argues in support of
better, smarter, and more efficient ways to produce and consume.
Arguably, the cointegration of sustainability and marketing would enable consumers and firms
to advance the global initiatives for sustainability. Therefore, marketing could conceivably play a
major part in moving society toward a more self-sufficient and sustainable future.

Does sustainability sell?

From extensive research on both global consumers and corporate brands, McCann-Erickson (2002)
argues in support of the sustainability concept. Several leading companies have demonstrated this
concept. For example, IKEA is at the forefront of the furniture industry, encouraging a sustainable
approach to furniture manufacturing and retailing (IKEA, 2014). Among some of IKEA’s sus-
tainability efforts were to remove polyvinyl chloride (PVC) from almost all its products, increase
use of energy-efficient light bulbs, and induce recycling efforts, such as by giving storewide gift
vouchers to customers who brought back Christmas trees, bought from either IKEA or other
retailers, for recycling. This example shows that the concept of sustainability is recognized as a
viable marketing approach that can influence consumers to minimize waste and contribute to the
conservation of the environment. In doing so, firms can position themselves in a positive, ‘‘heroic’’
light in consumers’ minds.
As another example, Nokia bases its sustainability initiatives on a life cycle thinking philo-
sophy (Nokia, 2011). The company adopts a precautionary approach to substance management
by including materials that may cause environmental degradation and damage public health in
the ‘‘Nokia Substance List’’, and this list is then provided to suppliers ahead of time so that they
can phase out harmful and/or unacceptable material inputs for Nokia products (Sen, 2011).
Nokia also carried out consumer campaigns around the world, and recycling points were made
available in all its care centers and priority dealer stores to allow consumers to dispose any
unwanted phones and obtain a discount on their next purchase at Nokia (Fong, 2010). This
example shows that a holistic approach to sustainability may not only reduce undesired envi-
ronmental and social consequences but also increase the economic benefits for buyers and
238 Marketing Theory 16(2)

sellers. More important, marketers that adopt sustainable practices may improve their brand
image and gain more loyal customers.
In all these cases, the concept of sustainability sells but, notably, through the aid of marketing in
changing or adhering to consumer perceptions of and demands for sustainability. Nonetheless, the
article notes several weaknesses in these observations. First, these examples are based on well-
known, multinational companies, and thus sustainability efforts and claims can be taken as true
based on the prestige of the brand names. In the larger marketplace, however, myriad ‘‘sustain-
able,’’ or even more narrowly ‘‘environmental,’’ claims exist, and thus considerable consumer
skepticism remains about these claims’ validity (Pahl, 2003). Second, the commercial viability and
consumer acceptance of sustainability certification and certified sustainable products remain low
because of the lack of empirical testing and documentation of its effectiveness. Third, the concept
of sustainability, at best, can only be inferred as catering to organizations and consumers in the
context of consumption of manufactured products and business practices, while its role in the
consumption of nonmanufactured products, such as nature, remains ambiguous. Arguably, the idea
of sustainability itself sells well in the business context, but vagueness indicates a sellout of
sustainability as a whole, thus commanding further investigation.

Sustainability marketing myopia

Marketing myopia theory was first coined by Levitt (1960), who argued that because marketers
believe the current situation is profitable, they disregard or do not realize that changes in the
marketplace must be handled accordingly. He further characterized the common pitfall of tunnel
vision in organizations, in which the focus is on ‘‘managing products’’ rather than ‘‘meeting
customers’ needs’’. Levitt warned that a corporate preoccupation on products rather than on
consumer needs was doomed to failure simply because consumers select products and new
innovations that offer benefits they desire. This was echoed by Ottman et al. (2006), who illustrated
that the failure of many green products was due to green marketing myopia, in which marketers
focused myopically on their products’ ‘‘greenness’’ over the broader expectations of consumers
and other market players (e.g. regulators and activists). These arguments suggest that marketers
should not overlook the importance of company potential and product attributes at the expense of
market needs, thus, aiming to satisfy market needs should be their top priority.
Arguably, the notion of sustainability marketing myopia is rooted in conventional marketing
myopia theory. Sustainability marketing aims to sell sustainable products that satisfy customer
needs and significantly improve the social and environmental performance along the life cycle
while also increasing customer value and achieving organizational objectives. Thus, sustainability
marketing myopia denotes a distortion stemming from an exaggerated focus on the socio-
environmental attributes of a sustainable product at the expense of customer benefits and values,
thus distorting the marketing process and likely leading to product failure (Belz and Peattie, 2009).
What distinguishes sustainability marketing myopia from traditional and green marketing myopia
is that the former follows a broader approach on the marketing myopia issue, taking into account
both the social attributes of the product and the environmental aspects.
From this conceptualization, the article argues that the emergence of sustainability marketing
myopia is attributed to two reasons. First, some marketers may have failed to communicate the
inherent consumer values derived from the socioecological features of the product, leaving per-
ceived customer benefits and values confined to traditional perceptions of monetary value. Roper
(2002) contends that the main reason consumers do not buy into sustainability products and
Lim 239

practices is the belief that they require sacrifices, such as inconvenience, higher costs, and lower
performance, without any added perceived benefit of significant socioenvironmental conservation
and advancement. Second, the lack of effort to align core benefits with socioecological attributes is
apparent, and sustainability marketing is well understood by only niche consumer segments, while
mainstream consumers remain in the dark. Ironically, despite what consumers think, many sus-
tainable products and practices are desirable because they deliver a multitude of highly sought-
after benefits, such as convenience, lower operating costs, and better performance; however,
more often than not, these are not marketed along with their socioenvironmental benefits, and thus,
consumers do not immediately recognize them as sustainable and form misperceptions about their
benefits (Ottman et al., 2006). The inability to strike the right balance between sustainable product
attributes and consumers’ benefits is poor enough, but the use of unsubstantiated claims about
socioenvironmental benefits of products by a cohort of unethical marketers makes matters worst.
In the next section, the article discusses the ethical dimension of sustainability marketing and offer
some approaches to avoid sustainability marketing myopia.

Ethics as a dimension of sustainability marketing

Indeed, the term sustainability marketing can also be described as little more than a thinly veiled
ploy to attract socially and environmentally conscious consumers while ‘‘sweeping’’ pressing
environmental and social concerns ‘‘under the carpet’’ (Jones et al., 2008). Nonetheless, it is
important to avoid falling into these negative myopias. Previously, the article explained the sig-
nificance of sustainability to marketing, and vice versa; thus, it can be rationally argued that the
effectiveness of sustainability marketing is highly dependent on its course of empowerment. This
means that for sustainability marketing strategies to be developed and implemented effectively,
marketers, organizations, and governmental agencies must conduct themselves in an ethical
manner. This view, however, is complex because the matter of making decisions regarding what is
right and fair for all members and society is subject to the philosophies and ethics of sustainability.
In their seminal work, Garcia-Rosell and Moisander (2008) present three different approaches
to ethics for sustainability: consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics. The concentration of
these three approaches to ethics lies in practical action, in which their basic notion focuses on the
right and the good. Thus, consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics approaches attempt to
provide an account of these concepts and explicate what types of actions are right (or wrong) and
what makes ends of actions good (or bad) (Garcia-Rosell et al., 2009). The consequentialist
approach (e.g. ethical egoism and utilitarianism) argues that the right or wrong of an action is
determined by its consequences (i.e. good or bad), in which the environment has only instrumental
value because it is considered a means to satisfy human needs (Crane and Matten, 2004). This
suggests that intrinsic value is not attributed to the environment itself but rather to the satisfaction
that it provides humans. Thus, a given situation may be arguably ‘‘right’’ if it brings about positive
consequences to all humans involved, preferably producing the greatest good for the greatest
number of people. A limitation, however, is that the consequentialist approach holds humans
responsible also for things they cannot control—that is, humans and their actions are arbitrated on
the basis of the consequences of their actions, even when they have no means to anticipate or
control these consequences (Jardins, 1997).
An alternative to the consequentialist approach is the deontological approach, which rejects the
notion that maximization of goods is the only morally significant outlook to action and posits that
there are distinct moral imperatives (i.e. rules and duties) and that the violation of these imperatives
240 Marketing Theory 16(2)

is intrinsically wrong while observance is intrinsically right (Brennan and Lo, 2002). Garcia-Rosell
and Moisander (2008) suggest that moral imperatives are based on the intrinsic value of the
environment, and thus the environment has a moral right to respectful treatment, in turn generating
a moral duty to humans to protect it. Thus, whereas consequentialism encourages marketers to
engage in sustainable actions as long as doing so maximizes the overall good consequences,
deontology argues that fulfilling duties and respecting rights are the morally right things to do,
even though the good is not maximized in this way. The deontology approach, however, is
dependent on how intrinsic value is ascribed to different elements of the natural environment.
Anthropocentric (human-centered) elements assign intrinsic value only to humans, whereas
nonanthropocentric elements grant moral standing to natural objects and thus recognize intrinsic
value in the environment (Garcia-Rosell et al., 2009). The problem here is the extent to which
moral rightness or wrongness (which may be based on cultural beliefs or religious obligations) is
assumed, thus providing further debate about the extent of the ethical dimension of sustainability
marketing.
Whereas consequentialism focuses on the outcomes of actions and deontology focuses on the
underlying principles, virtue ethics assumes a more focused approach on ethics, in which morally
correct actions are taken by actors with a virtuous character (e.g. wise and honest), and the central
tenet to virtue ethics is the notion of ‘‘a good life’’ (Garcia-Rosell and Moisander, 2008). Thus, for
virtue ethics, a focus on moral virtues and character traits contributing to the quality of life
becomes a natural way to approach ethics, with the notion of a good life becoming the most
fundamental moral question. Although such a focus most likely means more than profit generation
and market share for firms, this holistic approach seems overly dependent on the instincts and
personal values (virtuousness) of ‘‘worshipped actors’’ or ‘‘modeled leaders’’ in determining the
appropriate moral stance toward sustainability marketing actions.
However, the practical application of all three approaches to ethics in sustainability marketing is
scarce (exceptions include The Body Shop and Stonyfield Farm). In addition, these ethical
approaches have not been largely articulated in literature related to sustainability marketing;
existing explanations are mostly descriptive and discussed in relation to sustainability in general
(Chatzidakis, 2015). To further extend knowledge in this area, the author presents a synthesized
idea that promotes a holistic application of ethics to sustainability marketing in the latter section of
the article. The following section discusses another area which is often neglected in sustainability
marketing—that is, technology.

Technology as a dimension of sustainability marketing

Most societies have witnessed a transition from a time when information technology played a
marginal role in their citizens’ lives to a time when it is centrally important to most aspects of their
lifestyles and livelihoods (Souter, 2012). This includes changing production and consumption
patterns (Chesbrough, 2003), creating previously unfeasible opportunities (Grubler, 2003), and
altering behavioral norms in ways that result from the dynamics of technology and user interac-
tions rather than the decisions of politicians and firms (Souter, 2012).
Despite the various use of technology in modern society, the relationship between technology and
sustainability has not been clearly articulated in the extant literature on sustainability marketing. However,
two general observations suggest that technology holds immense potential for greater sustainability.
First, several studies have documented the pervasiveness of the Internet and its use as an
effective tool for disseminating information and bringing people together (Leiner et al., 2009;
Lim 241

Singh, 2014). Indeed, consumers today are equipped with various technological products that can
connect with the Internet, such as smartphones, tablets, and laptops. The estimated number of
pieces of equipment connected with the Internet currently stands at one for every person on earth,
and this is expected to multiply to 50 billion pieces by 2020 (Tillman, 2013). Thus, the increasing
connectivity facilitated by these technological innovations contributes to (1) raising awareness
among stakeholders and keeping them informed of sustainability issues and (2) encouraging
cocreation of solutions to address ongoing problems of unsustainable production, consumption,
and practices, which in turn make the goal of achieving greater sustainability increasingly
promising.
Second, technological advancement has provided many opportunities for stakeholders to
engage in more sustainable consumption practices. For example, external storage devices, such as
external hard disk and flash drives, were early technological innovations that helped reduce the
carbon footprint by saving the use of paper, while cloud storage is a recent technological inno-
vation that tries to reduce the production and use of external storage devices by persuading people
to store their electronic documents and files on secure Internet sites (Basmadjian et al., 2012).
Other notable technological innovations include street lights that diminish in intensity when no one
is in the zone surrounding the lights to save electricity and the use of global positioning system
devices to detect traffic problems and automatically reroute vehicles around blockages to save time
and fuel.
However, technology is not always a rosy affair if its use produces undesirable consequences
and/or if it is used inappropriately. For example, the invention of civilian vehicles (e.g. cars,
motorcycles) has led to an increase in carbon emissions and quicker depletion of natural resources
(oil and gas), which in turn contributes to environmental degradation (Omer, 2008). In addition, the
same technological innovations that consumers use to communicate with others have resulted in
reduced physical interactions and social health problems (Lim et al., 2012)—for example, instead
of spending time in person with their friends, people often call, text, or instant message them,
which may lead to anxiety or stress when they fail to receive response messages and alerts in a
timely manner (Balding, 2012).
In short, the use of technology has had a fundamental impact on today’s society. The inherent
advantages of widespread dissemination of information and creation or cocreation of innovative
alternatives or solutions to reduce carbon footprints can greatly contribute to the sustainability
agenda. However, when invented or used for the wrong purpose, technology may have an adverse
effect on sustainability.

Blueprint for sustainability marketing: A transconceptual approach

Although at times criticized as a hindrance to sustainable living, marketing also holds many
potential solutions to some of the challenges surrounding sustainability, such that the adoption of
sustainability practices provides benefits to both organizations and consumers. The article pro-
poses a schema that places the discussion into a sustainability marketing model (see Figure 1). The
model reflects what the article proposes as a holistic transconceptual approach to sustainability
marketing (applicable to myriad stakeholders such as individuals, firms, governments, non-
governmental organizations, and community groups) that extends the triple bottom-line approach
to organizational and societal success (the three pillars of which are people, planet, and profit).
More specifically, the article puts forth a theoretical conceptualization of sustainability marketing,
which the author argues is a contemporary description of an economically, environmentally,
242 Marketing Theory 16(2)

Ethical Technological
Philosophy: morality Philosophy: innovation
Goal: the right and the good Goal: sustainability
Exchange: nonprofit cause technology advancement and
for just and moral conducts adoption
Exchange: investment of
resources for solutions

Economic Environmental Social

Philosophy: anthropocentric Philosophy: eco-centric Philosophy: social virtue
Goal: customer and Goal: ecological Goal: benefit of society,
organizational satisfaction perseverance social equity
Exchange: product for profit Exchange: symbiotic Exchange: nonprofit cause
relation between resource use for a virtuous society
and preservation

Figure 1. The five dimensions of sustainability marketing. Note: Arrows show that all sustainability dimen-
sions are interrelated and thus affect the overall goal of achieving greater sustainability.

socially, ethically, and technologically enlightened approach to marketing. The key, therefore, is to
achieve economic viability, ecological health, social equity, widespread moral practices, and
technological advancement and adoption.
The sustainability marketing model in Figure 1 depicts the five dimensions of sustainability
marketing: economic, environmental, social, ethical, and technological. The traditional marketing
perspective is based on a classic economic paradigm, the goal of which is to maximize profits. This
is fundamentally a nonsustainable approach to marketing because it focuses solely on economic
profits (based on product–monetary exchanges). Furthermore, the application of many so-called
environmentally friendly products remains confined to the economic paradigm, by focusing on
traditional economic exchanges and profit as the ultimate goal, while green claims are used as a
marketing ploy (Lim and Ting, 2011). Although the potential for including environmental con-
siderations in marketing efforts has yet to be realized, and both a backlash and elements of myopia
have emerged (Gordon et al., 2011), utility of the concept remains. In contrast, social initiatives are
novel, that is, they attempt to induce behavioral change that contributes to increasing the well-
being of individuals and society at large. They can also be applied to a wide range of social
issues, but unfortunately, the majority of existing campaigns pertain to personal health (Peattie and
Peattie, 2009). Ethical considerations, which concentrate on right and good practices, pose another
Lim 243

dilemma for sustainability marketers because of the myriad approaches to ethics. Furthermore, the
dual effects of technology (i.e. positive and negative) require careful thought for it to contribute to
promoting sustainability. Thus, a focus on a single dimension of the model limits the potential of
sustainability marketing. Instead, the proposed sustainability marketing approach integrates all
five objectives.
Because sustainability is the underlying objective of sustainability marketing, the article
expands on each dimension in the model. First, the economic dimension adopts an anthropocentric
philosophy, in which the goal is to maximize customer and organizational satisfaction. Focus on
this dimension alone will surely lead to unsustainable marketing practices because both parties
would likely strive to maximize economic outcomes, thus sidelining the contributions of envi-
ronmental, social, ethical, and technological outcomes. Conversely, dismissal of the economic
dimension is objectively not feasible, simply because, if there is no motivation for economic gains,
the marketplace will not exist. This suggests that while less desirable profit motives are present in
this dimension, it is necessary to engage in product–monetary exchanges to ensure marketplace
sustainability. With the increasing calls for sustainability practices, marketers must broaden their
beliefs and practices to maximize customer and organizational satisfaction. As sustainability has
entered the vernacular of academics, business practitioners, and policy makers alike, these con-
stituencies are starting to accept that it is necessary for economic growth to account for its impact
on its surroundings if it is to be sustained over time (Connelly et al., 2011; Lodge, 2001). Thus,
when combined with environmental, social, ethical, and technological imperatives, economic
imperatives can be an effective pathway to new, sustainable marketing solutions.
Second, the goal of the environmental dimension, with its ecocentric philosophy, is environ-
mental perseverance. This calls for objectives that promote a healthy connection with the ecolo-
gical environment, in which protection of ecological resources (natural and cultural) is a priority.
The role of marketing here is to facilitate the symbiotic relationship between resource use and
preservation, and firms play key roles in its successful expedition. Although resource use is
arguably necessary to sustain market systems and human survival, possible alternatives and
practices that have the potential to minimize environmental degradation become an environmental
imperative, thus contributing to the sustainability agenda. Ideally, all environmental issues would
be integrated into definitions of individual, firm, and government value. A limitation of a sole
focus on environmental efforts, however, is the inability to target individual behavior because the
onus here is on firms and environmental factors to foster sustainable development, in turn largely
neglecting individual or communal behavior. Thus, it becomes apparent that stand-alone envi-
ronmental imperatives are insufficient to achieve greater sustainability.
Third, the social dimension, with its philosophy in social virtue, strives for the utmost benefits for
society and social equity. McKenzie-Mohr (1999) argues that an important feature of the social
dimension is individual orientation, which can be effective in winning people over, engaging them,
motivating them, and empowering them as individuals or within communities. The notion here is not
only to change attitudes to change behaviors but also to ensure that when new behaviors are adopted,
they are maintained. Partnership opportunities among citizen communities, third-sector organiza-
tions or nonprofit organizations, and business organizations are prominent here as such partnerships
are often more credible than business propositions alone. Social marketers can learn from com-
mercial expertise and resources and retool this learning to fit the marketing of social causes, which
has proved these constituencies are starting to accept that it is necessary for economic growth to
account for its impact on the environment and society if it is to be sustained over time successful in
the past (Kotler and Lee, 2008). The underlying aspect of social goals, therefore, is about marketing
244 Marketing Theory 16(2)

long-term social change, collaboratively. Thus, the article argues that social imperatives can be
implemented through the use of marketing principles and techniques to influence a target audience to
voluntarily accept, reject, modify, or abandon a behavior for the benefit of individuals, groups, or
society as a whole. Kotler and Zaltman (1971) argue that while social imperatives deliver social
good, social engineering and/or social reengineering may not necessarily be welcomed, though
pathways through this resistance exist—for example, complementary efforts of environmental
imperatives to supply environmentally friendly product lines, which help foster proenvironmental
behavior among society at large. This indicates that the limitations of environmental imperatives
(i.e. the inability to target individual behavior) are tenable through social imperatives.
Fourth, the ethical dimension is a moral philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and
recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior that is usually enacted by markets, systems,
institutions, and governments in an attempt to foster just, moral conducts. In the current case of
sustainability marketing, a tacit understanding is that it is morally wrong for society to engage in
activities that pollute and destroy the economic, natural, and social environment—in other words,
activities that pose threats to market sustainability and ecological sustainability. As mentioned
previously, there are three approaches to ethics for sustainability: consequentialism, deontology, and
virtue ethics. The article argues that a better way to approach ethics in sustainability marketing is to
blend these three approaches together. That is, following Caruana’s (2007) suggestion to use
multiple perspectives to gain a clearer picture on morality and sustainability, the current article
follows a similar approach by leveraging the strengths of one ethical theory to overcome the
weaknesses associated with another ethical theory, with the aim to highlight behaviors and practices
that lead to greater sustainability. The current article’s suggestion is premised on the idea that to
develop and implement effective sustainability marketing strategies, people and stakeholders (e.g.
individuals, firms, and governments) must view themselves as ethical subjects. Whereas the con-
sequentialist theory requires humans to only protect the environment as long as doing so maximizes
overall good consequences, deontology argues that fulfilling duties and respecting rights lead
automatically to something good. To facilitate a synthesis, the article proposes that sustainability
marketing practitioners should consider achieving the overall best ‘‘good’’ consequences (taking
into account the rights of all stakeholders in the ecosystem), on which the establishment of moral
duties is dependent. Doing so requires an agent who is results oriented, on the one hand, but can move
beyond mechanical rules or model following, on the other hand—that is, an actor who is sensitive to
the particularities of situations but is capable of engaging in reflective moral learning. Conversely,
virtue ethics argues that what is morally correct moves from actors of virtuous character to the notion
of a good life. What the article suggests here is that people in both business and social communities
should inherently take initiatives to internalize adopted moral duties and project them in good faith,
thereby facilitating widespread influence and transition of moral standards throughout respective
communities. First, stakeholders should understand which ‘‘overall’’ good practices will lead to
greater sustainability (a consequentialism approach, which overcomes the issue of neglecting the
‘‘overall good’’ in the deontology approach). Second, they should translate the identified practices
into moral obligations that are followed and protected (a deontology approach, but redefining what
was previously attributed to instrumental value (e.g. from the environment to overall good prac-
tices)) but that also can be reviewed and changed to facilitate greater sustainability across time (the
flexibility advantage offered by the consequentialism approach to overcome the weaknesses of
mechanical following in the deontology approach). Third, they should internalize these moral duties
and project them in good faith (to overcome the problem of overreliance of instincts and personal
values in the virtue ethics approach by providing support on the overall good internalized moral
Lim 245

stance that is projected by actors in the society (i.e. consequentialism- and deontology-based
ideology)), such as by taking the lead and engaging in activities that contribute to greater sustain-
ability. Nonetheless, this proposed ethical approach to sustainability marketing should be left open
to the different roles, rights, and responsibilities of different stakeholders. As such, the article argues
that it is vital to analyze the assumptions and beliefs about morality and sustainability that different
stakeholders hold (i.e. multiple moral actors) as well as to critically evaluate the complex impli-
cations of these assumptions for society at large.
Last, the technology dimension is rooted in a philosophy of innovation that aims to enhance
existing solutions and find new and improved ways of solving needs and/or problems. The goal is
not only to advance technology but also to facilitate widespread adoption of technology so that
more needs and/or problems can be satisfied and/or solved. Taken individually, it may be difficult
to ascertain how technology can be innovated and used in a way that contributes to the sustain-
ability agenda—focusing solely on the technological aspect may lead to inefficient and/or inef-
fective use of invested resources for technological advancement and adoption. However, with
economic, environmental, social, and ethical considerations in mind, the technology dimension of
the sustainability model suggests that technology can be used to communicate and teach the
sustainability agenda as a whole to stakeholders and to create/cocreate new alternatives/solutions
that are economically viable and reduce the impact of consumption activities on environmental
degradation. In addition, it is important to note that while technology may appear to contribute to
the sustainability of some dimensions, such as economic and environmental sustainability, if used
inappropriately, it may lead to the deterioration of other sustainability dimensions, such as creating
social problems (i.e. social sustainability (e.g. reduced physical social interaction)) and unethical
practices (i.e. ethical sustainability (e.g. breach of privacy)). Thus, the role of marketers is to
ensure that technological alternatives offered and used enhance not only the sustainability of
selected dimensions but all sustainability dimensions collectively to achieve greater sustainability,
thus reinforcing the need for a holistic approach toward understanding, planning, and managing
sustainability marketing initiatives. Considering the consequences of marketing activities on each
and every sustainability dimension discussed should contribute to this cause.

Conclusion
The article provides a blueprint for future sustainability research in marketing. It makes clear that
(1) sustainability is not an all-or-nothing, one-size-fits-all proposition and (2) sustainability can
improve all elements of the sustainability marketing model and contribute to economic, ecological,
social, ethical, and technological causes rather than simply adding economic costs. The author
hopes that the article helps academics, practitioners, and consumers identify opportunities to
increase sustainability value and construct their own cases for sustainability in marketing.
In short, the article proposes that sustainability comprises many facets and that the concept of
sustainability is about increasing opportunities, not limiting them. Therefore, sustainability mar-
keting must adopt a comprehensive and holistic approach to identify sustainability issues and
problems and to manage corresponding sustainability marketing initiatives with a well-informed
mind-set. Above all, the primary goal of sustainability marketing should be to contribute to
preservation and improvement of the sustainability dimensions as a whole, as identified in the
sustainability marketing model (economic, environmental, social, ethical, and technological).
Although these dimensions should conform to the standards of objectivity, they may not produce a
single solution to any given problem but instead create a diversity of solutions in accordance with
246 Marketing Theory 16(2)

time and context (e.g. environmental and cultural conditions of a geographical region). Any
attempt to impose uniform solutions to global sustainability problems will threaten the notion of
diversity, which in turn will prevent the realization of a society that is sustainable (one that
embraces human fulfillment as well as survival) (Komiyama and Takeuchi, 2006). Thus, future
collaborative research processes should aim to set the stage for wider, deeper, and more tangible
developments of sustainability in marketing. Further research also could advance insights from the
current article by examining the opportunities and challenges of incorporating economic, envi-
ronmental, social, ethical, and technological considerations as a whole in myriad stakeholder (e.g.
organizations, local communities) and contextual (e.g. goods and services) settings. In addition,
research could select other comprehensive key performance indicators to measure and monitor the
effectiveness of stakeholder initiatives in achieving the targets set for each sustainability dimen-
sion and the overlapping positive or negative effects of strategic improvements in one over the
other sustainability dimensions.

Acknowledgments
The author is especially grateful to the three anonymous reviewers and the editor for their helpful
comments, which improved the quality of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

Note
1. The author acknowledges this observation by one of the reviewers.

References
Aitken, R., Ballantyne, D., Osborne, P., et al. (2006) ‘Introduction to the Special Issue on the Service-
dominant Logic of Marketing: Insights from the Otago Forum’, Marketing Theory 6(3): 275–80.
Andreasen, A.R. (2002) ‘Marketing Social Marketing in the Social Change Marketplace’, Journal of Public
Policy and Marketing 21(1): 3–13.
Balding, R. (2012) ‘Turn Off your Smart Phone to Beat Stress’, The British Psychological Society, URL
(consulted 12 January 2012): http://www.bps.org.uk/news/turn-your-smart-phone-beat-stress.
Basmadjian, R., de Meer, H., Lent, R., et al. (2012) ‘Cloud Computing and Its Interest in Saving Energy: The
Use Case of a Private Cloud’, Journal of Cloud Computing 1(1): 1–25.
Belz, F.M. and Peattie, K. (2009) Sustainable Marketing: A Global Perspective. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
Bondy, K., Moon, J. and Matten, D. (2012) ‘An Institution of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in
Multi-national Corporations (MNCs): Form and Implications’, Journal of Business Ethics 111(2): 281–99.
Brennan, A. and Lo, Y.-S. (2002) ‘Environmental Ethics’, in E. N. Zalta (ed) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Phi-
losophy. Stanford: Stanford Publishing. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2002/entries/ethics-environmental.
Carrington, M.J., Neville, B.A. and Whitwell, G.J. (2014) ‘Lost in Translation: Exploring the Ethical Con-
sumer Intention-behavior Gap’, Journal of Business Research 67: 2759–967.
Caruana, R. (2007). Morality and Consumption: Towards a Multidisciplinary Perspective. Journal of Mar-
keting Management 23(3-4): 207–25.
Lim 247

Charter, M. (1992) Greener Marketing – A Responsible Approach to Business. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.
Charter, M., Peattie, K., Ottman, J., et al. (2002) Marketing and Sustainability. Cardiff: BRASS Centre.
Chatzidakis, A. (2015) ‘Guilt and Ethical Choice in Consumption: A Psychoanalytic Perspective’, Marketing
Theory 15(1): 79–93.
Chernatony, L., Harris, F. and Riley, F.D. (2000) ‘Added Value: Its Nature, Roles and Sustainability’,
European Journal of Marketing 34 (1/2): 39–56.
Cherrier, H., Szuba, M. and Ozcaglar-Toulouse, N. (2012) ‘Barriers to Downward Carbon Emission:
Exploring Sustainable Consumption in the Face of the Glass Floor’, Journal of Marketing Management
28(3/4): 397–419.
Chesbrough, H.W. (2003) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting From Tech-
nology. Harvard: Harvard Business Press.
Cleene, S. and Wood, C. (2004) Sustainability Banking in Africa. Johannesburg: African Institute of Cor-
porate Citizenship.
Clulow, V. (2005) ‘Future Dilemmas for Marketers: Can Stakeholder Analysis Add Value? European Journal
of Marketing 39(9/10): 978–97.
Coddington, W. (1992) Environmental Marketing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Connelly, B.L., Ketchen, D.J., and Slater, S.F. (2011) ‘Toward a ‘‘Theoretical Toolbox’’ for Sustainability
Research in Marketing’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 39: 86–100.
Costa, M. (2010) ‘Keith Weed Q&A’, Marketing Week, URL (consulted 22 July 2010): www.marketingweek.
co.uk/keith-weed-qa/3015855. article
Crane, A. (2000) ‘Marketing and the Natural Environment’, Journal of Macromarketing 20(2): 144–54.
Crane, A. and Matten, D. (2004) Business Ethics: An European Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davey, N. (2010) ‘How to Design and Communicate a Consumer-focused Sustainable Strategy’, My Cus-
tomer, URL (consulted 6 September 2010): www.mycustomer.com/topic/marketing/robert-nuttall-how-
design-and-execute-consumer-focused-sustainability-strategy/11273.
Doyle, P. (1995) ‘Marketing in the New Millennium’, European Journal of Marketing 29(13): 23–41.
Elkington, J. (1999) Cannibals With Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Oxford:
Capstone Publishing Limited.
Ferdous, A.S. (2010) ‘Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior to Explain Marketing Managers Perspectives
on Sustainable Marketing’, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 2, 313–25.
Fong, K.S. (2010) ‘Recycle your Handphone’, The Star, URL (consulted 23 September 2010): http://www.
thestar.com.my/story.aspx/?file¼%2f2010%2f9%2f23%2fnorth%2f7085342&sec¼north.
Fisk, G. (1974) Marketing and the Ecological Crisis. London: Harper and Row.
Garcia-Rosell, J.C. and Moisander, J. (2008) ‘Ethical Dimensions of Sustainable Marketing: A Consumer
Policy Perspective’, European Advances in Consumer Research 8: 210–15.
Garcia-Rosell, J.C., Moisander, J. and Makinen, J. (2009) ‘Complexities and Dimensions of Ethical Corporate
Identity: A Framework for Understanding Social Responsibility’, paper presented at the 22nd Annual
Conference of the European Business Ethics Network, 10–12 September, Athens, Greece.
George, W.R. (1990) ‘Internal Marketing and Organizational Behavior: A Partnership in Developing
Customer-Conscious Employees at Every Level’, Journal of Business Research 20(1): 63–70.
Gordon, R., Carrigan, M. and Hastings, G. (2011) ‘A Framework for Sustainable Marketing’, Marketing
Theory 11(2): 143–63.
Greenfield, W.M. (2004) ‘In the Name of Corporate Social Responsibility’, Business Horizons 47(1): 19–28.
Grubler, A. (2003) Technology and Global Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hauser, J., Tellis, G.J. and Griffin, A. (2006) ‘Research on Innovation: A Review and Agenda for Marketing
Science’, Marketing Science 25(6): 687–717.
IKEA. (2014) IKEA products, IKEA, URL: http://www.ikea.com/my/en/ts_dynamic/dynamiclist/filt_nel_
glob?filter¼1276842077842
Jagel, T., Keeling, K. Reppel, A., et al. (2012) ‘Individual Values and Motivational Complexities in Ethical
Clothing Consumption: A Means-end Approach’, Journal of Marketing Management 28(3/4): 373–96.
248 Marketing Theory 16(2)

Jardins, J.R.D. (1997) Environmental Ethics. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.

Jobber, D. (2010) Principles and Practice of Marketing. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.
Jones, P., Hill, C.C., Comfort, D., et al. (2008) ‘Marketing and Sustainability’, Marketing Intelligence and
Planning 26(2): 123–30.
Kenrick, J. (2012) ‘Jo Kenrick’, The Marketing Society, URL: www.marketing-soc.org.uk/tag/jo-kenrick/
Kilbourne, W.E. (2004) ‘Sustainable Communication and the Dominant Social Paradigm: Can They Be
Integrated? Marketing Theory 4(3): 187–208.
Komiyama, H. and Takeuchi, K. (2006) ‘Sustainability Science: Building a New Discipline’, Sustainability
Science 1(1): 1–6.
Kotler, P. (2011) ‘Reinventing Marketing to Manage the Environmental Imperative’, Journal of Marketing
75(4): 132–5.
Kotler, P. and Lee, N. (2008) Social Marketing: Influencing Behaviors for Good. New York: Sage
Publications.
Kotler, P. and Zaltman, G. (1971) ‘Social Marketing: An Approach to Planned Social Change’, Journal of
Marketing 35(3): 3–12.
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J. and Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2001) ‘Targeting Consumers who are Willing to Pay More
for Environmentally Friendly Products’, Journal of Consumer Marketing 18(6): 503–520.
Leiner, B.M., Cerf, V.G., Clark, D.D., et al. (2009) ‘A Brief History of the Internet’, ACM SIGCOMM
Computer Communication Review 39(5): 22–31.
Levitt, T. (1960) ‘Marketing Myopia’, Harvard Business Review 38(4): 27–47.
Lim, W.M. and Ting, D.H. (2011) ‘Green Marketing: Issues, Developments and Avenues for Future
Research’, International Journal of Global Environmental Issues 11(2): 139–56.
Lim, W.M., Ting, D.H., Puspitasari, M., et al. (2012) ‘Overexposure in Social Networking Sites’, Journal of
Research for Consumers 22: 7–14.
Lim, W.M., Yong, J.L.S. and Suryadi, K. (2014) ‘Consumers’ Perceived Value and Willingness to Purchase
Organic Food’, Journal of Global Marketing 27(5): 298–307.
Lodge, G.C. (2001) ‘Our Common Future? Harvard Business Review 68: 221–2.
Lusch, R.F. (2007) ‘Marketing’s Evolving Identity: Defining our Future’, Journal of Public Policy and
Marketing 26(2): 261–8.
McCann-Erickson. (2002) Can Sustainability Sell? Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. (1999) Fostering Sustainable Behaviour – An Introduction to Community-based Social
Marketing. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society.
Merrilees, B., Getz, D. and O’Brien, D. (2005) ‘Marketing Stakeholder Analysis: Branding the Brisbane
Goodwill Games’, European Journal of Marketing 39(9/10): 1060–77.
Mick, D., Pettigrew, S., Ozanne, J, et al. (2012) Transformative Consumer Research for Personal and
Collective Wellbeing. New York: Taylor and Francis.
Nolan, T. and Varey, R.J. (2014) ‘Re-cognising the Interactive Space: Marketing for Social Transformation’,
Marketing Theory 14(4): 431–50.
Nawang, C. (2012) ‘Marketing and Sustainability’, The Marketers: Marketing Simplified, URL: www.the-
marketers.in/marketing-sustainability/
Nkamnebe, A.D. (2011) ‘Sustainability Marketing in the Emerging Markets: Imperatives, Challenges, and
Agenda Setting’, International Journal of Emerging Markets 6(3): 217–32.
Nokia. (2011) ‘Sustainability Report’, Nokia, URL: http://company.nokia.com/sites/default/files/download/
nokia-sustainability-report-2011-pdf.pdf./
Omer, A.M. (2008) ‘Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development’, Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 12(9): 2265–300.
Ottman, J.A. (1993) Green Marketing. London: Pitman.
Ottman, J.A., Stafford, E.R., and Hartman, C.L. (2006) ‘Avoiding Green Marketing Myopia: Ways to
Improve Consumer Appeal for Environmentally Preferable Products’, Environment 48(5): 22–36.
Palmer, A. (2012) Introduction to Marketing: Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lim 249

Pahl, L. (2003) EcoRange: Market-orientated Environmental Certification for Rangeland Pastoral Indus-
tries. 1. Project Overview, Publication No. 02, Project No. DAQ-276A. Barton: Rural Industries Research
and Development Corporation.
Peattie, K. (2001) ‘Towards Sustainability: The Third Age of Green Marketing’, The Marketing Review 2(2):
129–46.
Peattie, S. and Peattie, K. (2003) ‘Ready to Fly Solo? Reducing Social Marketing’s Dependence on Com-
mercial Marketing Theory’, Marketing Theory 3(3): 365–85.
Peattie, K. and Peattie, S. (2009) ‘Social Marketing: A Pathway to Consumption Reduction? Journal of
Business Research 62: 260–8.
Prakash-Mani, K., Thorpe, J. and Zollinger, P. (2002) Developing Value: The Business Case for Sustainability
in Emerging Markets. Ireland: International Finance Corporation.
Rettie, R., Burchell, K. and Riley, D. (2012) ‘Normalising Green Behaviours: A New Approach to Sus-
tainability Marketing’, Journal of Marketing Management 28(3/4): 420–44.
Roper (2002) ‘Green Gauge Report 2002: Americans Perspective on Environmental Issues – Yes . . . But’,
Roper ASW, URL (consulted November 2002): www.windustry.com/conferences/november2002/
nov2002_proceedings/plenary/greengauge2002.pdf/
Schmitt, B. (1999) ‘Experiential Marketing’, Journal of Marketing Management 15(1-3): 53–67.
Sen, P. (2011) ‘Interview: ‘‘Nokia’s environmental work is based on life cycle thinking’’ says Head-
Sustainability of Nokia-India, India Carbon Outlook, URL (consulted 28 December 2011): http://india.
carbon-outlook.com/content/interview-%E2%80%9Cnokias-environmental-work-based-life-cycle-think-
ing-says-head-sustainability-nokia/.
Singh, P. (2014) ‘Social Media Crowdsourcing: Supporting User-Driven Innovation by Generating Ideas’,
International Journal of Online Marketing 4(2): 1–14.
Souter, D. (2012) ‘ICTs, the Internet and Sustainability’, International Institute for Sustainable Development,
URL (consulted May 2012): http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/icts_internet_sustainability.pdf/.
Sutton, P. (2004) A Perspective on Environmental Sustainability? Victoria: Research and Strategy for
Transition Initiation Inc. (RSTI).
Thogersen, J. and Zhou, Y. (2012) ‘‘‘Chinese Consumers’’ Adoption of ‘‘Green’’ Innovation – the Case of
Organic Food’, Journal of Marketing Management 28(3/4): 313–33.
Tillman, K. (2013). ‘How many internet connections are in the world? Right. Now.’ CISCO. URL: http://
blogs.cisco.com/news/cisco-connections-counter
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004) ‘Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing’, Journal of Marketing
68(1): 1–17.
Vermeir, I. and Verbeke, W. (2006) ‘Sustainable Food Consumption: Exploring the Consumer ‘‘Attitude-
Behavioral Intention’’ Gap’, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19(2): 169–94.
Webster, F.E. (2009) ‘Marketing IS Management the Wisdom of Peter Drucker’, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science 37(1): 20–7.
Williams, C. (2012) ‘Charitable Bottled Water Comes to Portland’, Portland Business Journal, URL (con-
sulted May 2012): http://www.sustainablebusinessoregon.com/articles/2012/05/charitable-bottled-water-
comes-to.html/.
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987) Our Common Future: The Brundtland Report.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N. and Lee, S. (2000) ‘An Examination of Selected Marketing Mix Elements and Brand
Equity’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28(2): 195–211.

Weng Marc Lim is attached with the School of Business, Monash University. His research interests include
sustainability and marketing. Address: School of Business, Monash University, Jalan Lagoon Selatan,
46150 Bandar Sunway, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia. [email: [email protected] or lim@
wengmarc.com]