Marketing is defined as “the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large” (American Marketing Association 2024). Sustainable marketing is marketing that intends to satisfy the needs of current generations, without destroying the opportunities of future generations to satisfy their needs. Belz & Peattie (2012, p. 29) defines sustainability marketing as “planning, organizing, implementing and controlling marketing resources and programmes to satisfy consumers’ wants and needs, while considering social and environmental criteria and meeting corporate objectives”.
Sustainability marketing: The sustainable 4 Ps
Sustainable products and services
In a sustainable marketing perspective the idea is to create products and services that satisfies consumer needs’ as well as possible, while reducing or eradicating (or even reversing) negative effects on other consumers, other stakeholders and the environment. At the same time, the company financial objectives must be considered.
Many products and services fail to truly satisfy consumer needs (or satisfy one need, while destroying the ability to satisfy future needs). An example is unhealthy foods, which satisfies the need for energy and not feeling hungry but have negative long-term health effects. Many products and services satisfy the need of the customers but come at the expense of other groups or the environment. Alcohol has positive and negative effects for the individual, but have many negative externalities (violence, drunk driving etc). Some needs are also almost completely unsatisfied, providing banking or telecommunications services to people in poor countries who were previously unserved has a large positive impact on quality of life (Aker & Mbiti 2010).
Reducing the negative impact of a product or service involves both maximizing the needs satisfaction while minimizing the negative impact on the environment and on other groups or stakeholders.
- Environment: To minimize negative impact products must be designed to use as little resources as possible through the whole life cycle of the product or service. The resources used should be sustainable. The choice of material is often more important than how the material is produced (although both matters). Example: The choice of type of building material (wood vs concrete) has a bigger effect than the
- One approach is to change products to services, or to create sharing systems. While the distinction between products and services is not totally clear (and most market offerings have a bit of both), products are more physical and typically use more resources. To create sharing systems is also an option, where resources are shared in different ways (sharing cars, flats, clothes etc).
- Other stakeholders: The impact on other stakeholders must also be assessed. Products and services have effects also on others than the buyers or users. A simple example is tobacco smoking, with negative effects of passive smoking.
Sustainable marketing must take the whole life cycle into account, meaning both the production, use and disposal of the products. Product durability is an important concept, how long does a product last (and is used?). Planned obsolescence is when companies plan for a limited durability of products, to encourage more frequent buying (Maitre-Ekern & Dalhammar 2016). The disposal phase is important, how easy is it to reuse for other purposes/sell/give away (best) or recycle (worse) the product.
Marketing communications
Marketing communications is advertising, social media and influencers, PR and media publicity, direct sales and communication to the customer, sponsorship, and other types of paid and unpaid communications. The purpose of marketing communications is typically to sell the product or service, or to build a brand or brand associations. Consequences for sustainability depends to a large degree on the product/service. If advertising increases purchase and use of environmentally unfriendly products over more friendly ones, the result is negative. If the advertising influences towards more sustainable products and services, the result can be positive.
Advertising has frequently been criticized for creating “artificial needs” and making people more materialistic (prioritizing material objects and income over other things). Advertising is also criticized for creating dissatisfaction with life through social comparison, where people compare themselves to the “idealized” image in advertisements. Empirical studies of the effects of advertising have however failed to find clear negative (or positive) effects of advertising on life satisfaction (Griffith et al. 2022, Michel et al 2019). Some marketing communication is misleading or wrong, influencing consumers to make poor choices
Not all effects are negative, marketing communications also work as a signal of good quality, making it possible for customers to make informed choices. Advertising can make the characteristics and prices of products available for customers, so that they can get their needs satisfied in the best possible way.
Marketing communications can be used to communicate about the environmental or social characteristics of the product or service, making it possible for consumers to take sustainable choices. Some brands position themselves around sustainability (think Patagonia). Certifications and labels are frequently used to communicate sustainability, since sustainability is complex and often difficult to convey to the customer. In Norway, the Nordic Swan Ecolabel (Svanemerket) is a general ecolabel for sustainable products. Other common labels are Fair Trade, Organic, MSC, the Keyhole, and many more.
In sustainable marketing communications, the content, channel and target groups must be considered. Is the contents correct and fair? (Is the use of manipulated images of models in advertising acceptable? Probably not). Is the place/distribution of the advertising fair? (Should McDonalds have a large board outside the local school?). Should we target vulnerable groups/groups with less resources (Advertising towards children? typically not).
Sustainable pricing
What is a sustainable price? It is difficult to say, but it probably does not mean maximizing the price/profits at any time. Surely, the company needs to cover its costs and make a reasonable profit/return on investments, but sustainable marketing would also consider the needs and situation of the customer. Maybe some groups for instance should have lower prices than others based on their lower ability to pay. Note that this is already the case for many services (such as public transportation where students and children get lower prices).
In any case, prices should be clear and transparent, and fair across groups. Sustainable pricing would not include hidden fees, bait-and-switch offers, hard to understand price plans, and so on.
An important point is also that in sustainable marketing, the price of the product also includes the true costs to society. Today, many products and services have too low prices since they do not include the costs for the environment or other stakeholders (e.g. carbon emissions, poor treatment of employees). Fast fashion is often argued to be too cheap because it does not do this.
Distribution
Distribution is about where and when to offer the product or service. A sustainable distribution policy would consider the needs of customers across time and space. Remote areas and towns with small population numbers are perhaps not very profitable, but inhabitants need products and services to live good lives. In some areas, too intense distribution is a problem (think gambling stores in deprived areas)
Retailers have a large opportunity (or responsibility) to decide what is sold and bought. Food retailers can influence the health of customers by influencing them to take better choices in the store by for instance changing the store layout, or selecting to stock more healthy and fewer unhealthy products. Retailers can also demand high levels of sustainability from their suppliers, or prioritize small and local producers.
Marketing and greenwashing
Greenwashing is when companies promote themselves or their products as more environmentally friendly or sustainable than in reality (Delmas & Burbano, 2011). Companies use greenwashing since stakeholders appreciate sustainable products and companies but being truly sustainable often require substantial investments, and it is cheaper to “pretend” to be sustainable. It is often difficult for consumers to truly assess how sustainable something is, and for regulators to decide and enforce good rules for how companies communicate sustainability. Greenwashing companies exploit this “room”. Greenwashing can also be a result of lack of knowledge or over-optimism about the company’s ability to reach its goals (Montgomery et al 2024).
Greenwashing takes many forms. It can be blatant lies, but it is more often a type of selective disclosure where the company talks communicate about something positive while leaving out/not mentioning the (sometimes much more important) negative impacts on the environment. Being vague or unclear is also typical, claiming that something is “green” or “sustainable” without offering any evidence or facts (de Freitas Netto et al. 2020).
For society, greenwashing is problematic because it makes it more difficult or impossible to distinguish the “good” from the “bad” performers on sustainability. This makes it difficult to reward the good performers and achieving a more sustainable economy. In theory, greenwashing can also stop more efficient regulations or other measures, since society believes that a company or sector is already working hard on sustainability.
For individual companies greenwashing can be risky on different levels. If consumers realise that the company is greenwashing, they can react and be dissatisfied (Ioannou et al 2022). Regulators are also becoming more active and punishing companies that engage in greenwashing.
“Dieselgate” The Volkswagen emissions scandal, also known as “Dieselgate,” erupted in 2015 when it was discovered that Volkswagen had installed software in its diesel vehicles to cheat on emissions tests. The software could detect when the car was undergoing emissions testing and activate full emissions controls, making the vehicles appear more environmentally friendly than they in reality. In normal driving conditions, the software deactivated these controls, allowing the cars to emit up to 40 times more nitrogen oxides (NOx) than the legal limit. The scandal affected 11 million vehicles worldwide, including nearly 500,000 in the U.S. Volkswagen admitted to the deception, suffered from negative legal, financial, and reputational consequences, with the company paying over $30 billion in fines and settlements.
Using marketing to influence sustainable consumer behaviour
Marketing tools can also be used to influence consumer behaviour to be more sustainable.
Nudging
Green nudging is to “subtly” influence people to adopt environmentally friendly behaviours without restricting their freedom of choice or significantly altering economic incentives. Nudge theory is based on insights from behavioural economics. Some typical examples of (green) nudges are (Schubert 2017):
Green Nudges Appealing to Self-Image: Nudging by encouraging consumers to align their actions with a positive self-image as good, responsible, individuals. Examples are eco-labels making environmentally friendly product characteristics more visible, making it easy to express self-image
Green Nudges Leveraging Social Norms: Humans like to conform to social expectations and follow the actions of others. An example is peer comparisons in energy use. Some energy providers send their customers a report showing how much energy they use compared to others, influencing them to reduce usage if they are above the average (Allcott, 2011). A famous example is Goldstein et al. (2008), where hotel guests are informed that most other guests reuse their towels. This increased towel reuse rates compared to just informing guests about environmental benefits.
Green Nudges Using Defaults: people tend to stick with the default option rather than actively making a different choice. An example is energy providers that default customers into green energy plans, leading to very high levels of participation in renewable energy plans (Pichert & Katsikopoulos 2008).
The SHIFT framework
White et al (2019) introduces the SHIFT framework as a tool to increase sustainable consumption. The SHIFT framework aims to address common barriers to sustainable consumption and consists of the following factors:
| Social influence | Other people’s attitudes, behavior, and expectations matter a lot. Social norms, social identity, social status are important. Example: Communicating that most people recycle, or conserve energy encourages others to conform to that behaviour. |
| Habit formation | Much of the behavior is habit-based. Habits must be changed in a sustainable direction. Example: Setting energy-efficient devices as default options and making recycling easier by providing accessible bins. |
| Individual self | Our identity and desire for consistency are important. Our self-interest creates environmental problems but can also be used to change behavior. People are different. Eco-friendly branding that allows consumers to see themselves as responsible “green” consumers. |
| Feelings and cognition | Decisions are often guided mostly by emotions and intuition, or cognitive assessments. This must be considered if we are to achieve sustainable consumption. We must use both positive and negative emotions, and information and knowledge, but for different purposes and times. Example: Campaigns that generate feelings of pride in reducing one’s carbon footprint or guilt for wasting resources. |
| Tangibility | Sustainability is often not very concrete, while decisions are often made “here and now” Sustainable benefits and solutions can be made more concrete/tangible. Example: Showing how reducing water usage benefits the local community’s water supply. |
Reflection questions
- Cars have on average become heavier and bigger the last years. Why do you think this has happened, and what are the consequences for environmental sustainability?
- In Norway digitally edited photos of models used in advertising must be clearly labelled. What do you think are the consequences of this policy?
- How can a clothes retailer do sustainable marketing?
References
Aker, J. C., & Mbiti, I. M. (2010). Mobile Phones and Economic Development in Africa. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(3), 207–232. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.24.3.207
Allcott, Hunt. “Social norms and energy conservation.” Journal of public Economics 95, no. 9-10 (2011): 1082-1095.
American Marketing Association. 2024. Definitions of marketing. https://www.ama.org/the-definition-of-marketing-what-is-marketing/ .
Belz, F. M., & Peattie, K. (2012). Sustainability marketing: A global perspective. John Wiley & Sons.
Delmas, M. A., & Burbano, V. C. (2011). The Drivers of Greenwashing. California Management Review, 54(1), 64–87. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2011.54.1.64.
De Freitas Netto, S. V., Sobral, M. F. F., Ribeiro, A. R. B., & Soares, G. R. D. L. (2020). Concepts and forms of greenwashing: A systematic review. Environmental Sciences Europe, 32(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-020-0300-3.
Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 472–482.
Griffith, D. A., Lee, H. S., & Yalcinkaya, G. (2022). Understanding the relationship between advertising spending and happiness at the country level. Journal of International Business Studies, 1–23.
Ioannou, I., Kassinis, G., & Papagiannakis, G. (2023). The Impact of Perceived Greenwashing on Customer Satisfaction and the Contingent Role of Capability Reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 185(2), 333–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05151-9.
Michel, C., Sovinsky, M., Proto, E., & Oswald, A. J. (2019). Advertising as a Major Source of Human Dissatisfaction: Cross-National Evidence on One Million Europeans. In The Economics of Happiness (pp. 217–239). Springer.
Montgomery, A. W., Lyon, T. P., & Barg, J. (2024). No End in Sight? A Greenwash Review and Research Agenda. Organization & Environment, 37(2), 221–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/10860266231168905.
Pichert, D., & Katsikopoulos, K. V. (2008). Green defaults: Information presentation and pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(1), 63–73.
White, K., Habib, R., & Hardisty, D. J. (2019). How to SHIFT Consumer Behaviors to be More Sustainable: A Literature Review and Guiding Framework. Journal of Marketing, 83(3), 22–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919825649