Sustainability in marketing: a systematic review unifying 20 years of theoretical and substantive contributions (1997–2016)

Abstract

A growing area of marketing research has surfaced in the past 20 years at the nexus of marketing and sustainability. However, a review of marketing literature shows that this field lacks conceptual and theoretical clarity. This article reviews research published on sustainability from 25 leading marketing journals between 1997 and 2016. It examines how theories used to frame sustainability in marketing literature have evolved. Additionally, no unified definition for sustainability exists in current marketing literature. To fill this void, the author proposes a new, holistic definition of sustainability in marketing, coined “sustainable marketing,” which is unique to the marketing discipline. Through presenting the GREEN Framework of Sustainable Marketing, the author conceptually and theoretically clarifies, unifies, and extends the current research. Finally, the systematic review explores implications for theory and practice and offers researchers, practitioners, and policymakers many opportunities for future research.

Appendix 1: The method of systematic review

Review articles must have a solid method of data collection, analysis, and synthesis to influence marketing thought (Palmatier et al. 2018). Systematic reviews aim to “comprehensively locate and synthesize research…using organized, transparent, and replicable procedures at each step of the process” (Littel et al. 2008, p. 1). While this systematic review evaluates no single theory, it holistically assesses the theories used during the past 20 years (1997–2016). While there is no set formula to craft a review article (Peterson and Crittenden 2012), this review followed the systematic review method approach described by Transfield et al. (2003). They use a three-step method of search, screen (and assess), and extract/synthesize.

Search

This systematic review concentrates specifically on research at the nexus of marketing and sustainability; therefore, relevant studies were searched for in the top 25 marketing journals, as ranked by Thomson Reuters (2016), between January 1997 and December 2016. Using Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science Social Science Index, the most recent search occurred January 2017 to ensure all articles published between those dates would be included. The title keywords of sustainability, sustainable, environmental, and green were identified from an initial screening of published marketing research on sustainability. At least one of the four keywords had to appear in the title of the article.

Even though numerous articles were published before 1997, this systematic review only searched for and analyzed research during the past 20 years. First, although marketing researchers have been studying sustainability for many years, research output has expanded significantly in the past two decades. Seven articles were published in the top 25 marketing journals in 1997; whereas, 37 articles were published in 2016. Second, although marketing research on sustainability was published before the late 1990s, in 1997, Kilbourne et al. (1997) published a seminal article on marketing and sustainability. In this article, the researchers introduced sustainable consumption and quality of life (QOL) from a macromarketing perspective rather than from a micromarketing perspective. This article shifted the focus of marketing researchers investigating sustainability from an environmental, micro-level focus, to a larger, more holistic, macro-sustainable focus. As this systematic review explores sustainability from the macro-level, this seminal article provides a valuable starting point. This initial search produced 464 articles.

Screen (and assess)

After the initial search, the author conducted the initial screening. First, to be included in the review, the article needed to be a conceptual, theoretical, or empirical study. The review omitted book reviews, commentaries, conference papers, journal introductions, and editorials because this review focuses on original, double-blind-reviewed research. Other articles and commentaries may not be double-blind reviewed or may refer to earlier or later published research. This narrowed the number of articles from 464 to 325. Second, the author read the abstracts and briefly scanned through the content of the 325 articles. Based on the second screening and assessment, not all 464 articles interpreted sustainability based on Elkington’s (1994) broadly construed sustainability definition of improving the environment, economy, and society. For example, since the search initiated through a title keyword screening, a study examining a “sustainable” firm may focus on how it creates competitive advantage but does not consider environmental sustainability (Katobe and Murray 2004), while “environmental” might refer to geographic stimuli influencing consumer decision-making (Leonidou and Leonidou 2011). The second screening narrowed the number of included articles from 325 to 228.

Extract and synthesize

The author used a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to summarize the 228 articles under “sustainability definition,” “methodology,” “theoretical lens,” “context,” “key findings,” and “future research opportunities.” The articles were heterogeneous, meaning the researchers defined sustainability in different ways, conducted their research using numerous methods (e.g., conceptual, qualitative, and quantitative), and used many unique contexts. After creating the spreadsheet, the author reviewed the definitions of sustainability and theories used. First, the numerous definitions were categorized as either a “Brundtland Commission” (1987) definition, a “triple bottom line” definition (Elkington 1994), or “other.” Second, the definitions were categorized as environmentally-focused or holistically-focused. Next, the author analyzed the frequency that each theory was used. Further analysis crafted an evolutionary “story” of how marketing researchers used different theories in their studies over the past 20 years. Only theories used in four or more studies were counted, resulting in 13 prominent theoretical lenses representative of research on sustainability published in marketing literature (Table 4). This review uses an integrative approach, outlined by MacInnis (2011) to “synthesize, amalgamate, or harmonize…[to] accommodate extant knowledge, explain puzzling or inconsistent findings, reveal novel insights, [and] create parsimony” into a unified whole (p. 138). By analyzing the evolutionary story of the 13 prominent theoretical lenses, the many definitions of sustainability, and numerous foundational articles on marketing thought (e.g., Alderson 1957; Bagozzi 1975, 1978; Hunt 1983), the author crafted a conceptual model based on five sustainability principles that resulted in the GREEN Framework of Sustainable Marketing (Fig. 1).