Skip to main content

Purchasing and Marketing of Social and Environmental Sustainability for High-Tech Medical Equipment

Abstract

As the functional capabilities of high-tech medical products converge, supplying organizations seek new opportunities to differentiate their offerings. Embracing product sustainability-related differentiators provides just such an opportunity. This study examines the challenge organizations face when attempting to understand how customers perceive environmental and social dimensions of sustainability by exploring and defining both dimensions on the basis of a review of extant literature and focus group research with a leading supplier of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning equipment. The study encompasses seven hospitals and one private imaging center in the Netherlands and identifies five social aspects that cover 11 indicators. The authors conduct 22 customer perception interviews with key decision-making stakeholders involved in purchasing MRI scanning equipment. Respondents find environmental and social sustainability dimensions personally relevant but professionally secondary to cost, performance, and ability to use the equipment in their organizations’ physical infrastructure. Finally, incorporating a product’s environmental and social credentials within the marketing of MRI scanning equipment enhances the perception of the product offering in decision-making stakeholders’ minds and provides a means of differentiation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Amaral, S. P., La Rovere, E. L. 2003. Indicators to Evaluate Environmental, Social, and Economic Sustainability: A Proposal for the Brazilian Oil Industry. Oil & Gas Journal 101(19), 30–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Beverland, M., Lindgreen, A. 2006. Implementing Market Orientation in Industrial Firms: A Multiple Case Study. Industrial Marketing Management 36(4), 430–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowell, S. J., Wehrmeyer, W., Argust, P. W., Graham, J., Robertson, S. 1999. Sustainability and the Primary Extraction Industries: Theories and Practice. Resources Policy 25(4), 277–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review 14(4), 532–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiksel, J., J. McDaniel and D. Spitzley: 1998, ‹Measuring Product Sustainability’, The Journal of Sustainable Product Design (July), 1–15

  • Friedman, M.: 1970, ‹The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits’, The New York Times Magazine, September 13

  • Funk, K. 2003. Sustainability and Performance. MIT SLOAN Management Review 44(2), 65–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Gauthier, C. 2005. Measuring Corporate Social and Environmental Performance: The Extended Life-Cycle Assessment. Journal of Business Ethics 59(2), 199–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geibler, J. von, Liedtke, C., Wallbaum, H., Schaller, S. 2006. Accounting for the Social Dimension of Sustainability: Experiences from the Biotechnology Industry. Business Strategy and the Environment 15(5), 334–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative: 2006, ‹RG; Sustainability Reporting Guidelines’, Guidelines Developed by GRI, 19 September

  • van Heesch, T.: 2006, ‹Customer Value Analysis at Philips Medical Systems Magnetic Resonance. What’s the Fun of Selling Just on Price?’, Unpublished MA Thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands

  • Isaksson, R., Garvare, R. 2003. Measuring Sustainable Development Using Process Models. Managerial Auditing Journal 18(8), 649–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jick, T. D. 1979. Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action. Administrative Science Quarterly 24(4), 602–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeble, J. J., Topiol, S., Berkeley, S. 2003. Using Indicators to Measure Sustainability Performance at a Corporate and Project Level. Journal of Business Ethics 44(2), 149–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., Guba, E. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • Littig, B., Griessler, E. 2005. Social Sustainability: A Catchword Between Political Pragmatism and Social Theory. International Journal of Sustainable Development 8(1–2), 65–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maon, F., A. Lindgreen and V. Swaen: 2008, ‹Designing and Implementing Corporate Social Responsibility: An Integrative Framework Grounded in Theory and Practice’, Journal of Business Ethics, forthcoming

  • Matthyssens, P., Vandenbempt, K. 2003. Cognition-in-Context: Reorienting Research in Business Market Strategy. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing 18(6/7), 595–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, I., Benz, C. R. 1998. Qualitative-Quantitative Research Methodology: Exploring the Interactive Continuum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • Onwuegbuzie, A., Leech, N. L. 2005. Taking the ‹Q’ out of Research: Teaching Research Methodology Courses Without the Divide Between Quantitative and Qualitative Paradigms. Quality and Quantity 39(3), 267–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ottman, J.: 1997, ‹What Sustainability Means to Marketers’, Marketing News (July 15), 4

  • Philips Sustainability Report: 2006, Improving Lives, Delivering Value (Philips, Eindhoven, the Netherlands)

  • Seuring, S. A., Koplin, J., Behrens, T., Schenidewind, U. 2003. Sustainability Assessment in the German Detergent Industry: From Stakeholder Involvement to Sustainability Indicators. Sustainable Development 11(4), 199–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherwin, C.: 2004, ‹Design and Sustainability: A Discussion Paper Based on Personal Experience and Observations’, The Journal of Sustainable Product Design 4(3), 21–31

    Google Scholar 

  • SIGMA Project: 2007, Website 8, available at http://projectsigma.co.uk (accessed April 15, 2007)

  • Spiggle, S. 1994. Analysis and Interpretation of Qualitative Data in Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research 21(3), 491–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steurer, R., Langer, M. E., Konrad, A., Martinuzzi, A. 2005. Corporations, Stakeholders and Sustainable Development I: A Theoretical Exploration of Business–Society Relations. Journal of Business Ethics 61(3), 263–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CT: Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanzil, D., Beloff, B. 2006. Assessing Impacts: Overview on Sustainability Indicators and Metrics: Tools for Implementing Sustainable Development in the Chemical Industry, and Elsewhere. Environmental Quality Management 15(4), 41–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veleva, V., Ellenbecker, M. 2001. Indicators of Sustainable Production: Framework and Methodology. Journal of Cleaner Production 9(6), 519–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veleva, V., Hart, M., Greiner, T., Crumbley, C. 2000. Indicators of Sustainable Production. Journal of Cleaner Production 9(5), 447–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, S. 2002. A Journey in Design: An Exploration of Perspectives for Sustainability. The Journal of Sustainable Product Design 2(1), 3–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WCED: 1987, ‹Our Common Future’, Report of the World Commission of Environment and Development

  • Wood, L. M. 1996. Added Value: Marketing Basics. Journal of Marketing Management 12(November), 735–755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam Lindgreen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lindgreen, A., Antioco, M., Harness, D. et al. Purchasing and Marketing of Social and Environmental Sustainability for High-Tech Medical Equipment. J Bus Ethics 85 (Suppl 2), 445–462 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9740-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9740-1

Keywords

  • high-tech medical equipment
  • purchasing process
  • decision making stakeholders
  • environmental sustainability
  • social sustainability