Reflections on Sustainable Enterprise

Abstract

The purpose of this commentary is to stimulate debate on the topic of macromarketing education. Mark Peterson’s textbook Sustainable Enterprise: A Macromarketing Approach, which advocates a market-based approach to sustainability, is discussed in the context of a new marketing program exploring the intersection between marketing, markets, and society. As part of the discussion, the developmental and critical perspectives of macromarketing thought are contrasted with each other and also with the managerial perspective that dominates much of today’s marketing education. The commentary concludes with a call for critical reflexivity in macromarketing education and cautions that market-based approaches to sustainability can only work toward a sustainable future, but not solve the problem of an unsustainable lifestyle.

Keywords

macromarketing education sustainability critical marketing

I am grateful for the opportunity to comment on Mark Peterson’s Sustainable Enterprise: A Macromarketing Approach, the first textbook dedicated to the subject of macromarketing. The main reason for this invitation is due to my involvement in developing a new postgraduate program exploring the role of marketing at the intersection between markets and society, which carries the working title “Markets, Consumption & Society.” A second reason may be found in Chapter 6 of Sustainable Enterprise: A Macromarketing Approach, where the role of the state in society is discussed. In this chapter, the author examines findings from the Edelman Trust Barometer (2010) asking respondents from the United States, China, and three European Countries (France, Germany, and the United Kingdom) how much they “trust business to do what is right.” The study covers the last decade and results in a classification that labels Europeans as “skeptics” who generally place a low level of trust in business. In contrast, Chinese respondents are labeled “optimists” and U.S. respondents “pragmatists.” Although mixing data from French, German, and U.K. respondents might not constitute a meaningful “European” perspective, I share the skepticism expressed in this position. Thus, I am more than happy to take on the role of a European skeptic who does not expect business to do “what is right.”

Due to my involvement in developing Markets, Consumption & Society, I wish to emphasize in my commentary the subject of macromarketing education. I shall begin with a brief reflection on how my personal interest in the field of macromarketing developed, followed by a discussion of Sustainable Enterprise: A Macromarketing Approach and how the book relates to the development of the macromarketing field. I shall then highlight the values and beliefs that guide our thinking in developing a course consistent with the macromarketing tradition, which allows for a brief discussion of the particular utility of Sustainable Enterprise: A Macromarketing Approach to this endeavor. I shall conclude my comment with some final thoughts from the perspective of a European skeptic.

Macromarketing

My first conscious consideration of the field came through an encounter with the three dichotomies model of marketing (Hunt 1976) followed by Hunt’s (2002) Foundations of Marketing Theory. Normative macro-questions, such as “Whether marketing should have special social responsibilities?” or “Whether advertising is socially desirable?” (Hunt 1976, 21), intrigued me much more than micro questions that had defined my earlier marketing education and practice (e.g., making pricing decisions in direct marketing and “managing” relationships with customers). Of course, the importance of macro-issues is exemplified most when studying the intersection between marketing and politics, which is highlighted by yet another question taken from the three dichotomies model: whether we as “society should allow politicians to be “sold” like toothpaste?” (Hunt 1976, 21).

The last question is probably much less provocative now than when it was formulated four decades ago. Using provocative questions to stimulate debate is what made the model appealing to me and, I presume, also to those who participated in the early macro debates. Providing a multidimensional perspective that led to the first macromarketing definition as the study of marketing systems impacting society and being impacted by society (Hunt 2002, 13), the three dichotomies model encouraged the inclusion of a diverse array of topics stretching from social responsibility to the influence of distinct value systems (i.e., political and social) on marketing. Today, this is encapsulated in the tagline “examining the interactions among, markets, marketing, and society” which is shown on the title of every issue of the Journal of Macromarketing.

Over time, two modes of thought have emerged within the macromarketing discipline, offering distinctly different perspectives on how markets and marketing systems impact sustainability and the welfare of humans and the environment (Mittelstaedt and Kilbourne 2008). The “developmental school” suggests that markets and marketing systems can contribute to a sustainable future. The “critical school” denies such an optimistic outlook and assumes that marketing systems reflect “the neoliberal economic philosophy” and thus positions such systems “as part of the sustainability problem” (Mittelstaedt and Kilbourne 2008, 17). Although capitalism is experiencing a crisis of confidence (Szmigin and Rutherford 2012), it is not capitalism that is being criticized here, but a combination of capitalism and liberalism that characterizes some neoliberal regimes, such as those driven by short-term financial goals and the stock market (see Miller 2001).

Looking forward, Fisk (2006, 214) laid out his vision for macromarketing in the twenty-first century to work “toward a globally sustainable society,” reminding us that as early as the 1970s, pioneers such as Charles Slater actively encouraged the study of marketing systems in societies undergoing economic transition. A recent Journal of Macromarketing special issue on Vietnam (Shultz 2012) is evidence of the continuing global focus within the discipline. For future generations of macromarketers to achieve his vision, Fisk (2006, 216) stressed the importance of establishing links with colleagues outside of the (macro-)marketing discipline and developing the required analytical skills and metrics to explore relevant macromarketing phenomena. He continued to highlight the significance of utilizing knowledge developed outside the discipline and used the example of technology provision as “an effective means for eradicating poverty, disease, and environmental degradation” (Fisk 2006, 216). In his first editorial as the Journal’s new editor, Witkowski (2010, 4) makes an important addition to Fisk’s stipulation that “the purpose of macromarketing is to save the world” by adding that a further purpose is also to “save the world from marketing and marketing from itself.” His comments link the developmental and critical schools of thought within macromarketing: while the developmental school supports the purpose of macromarketing to save the world with marketing, the critical school supports the purpose of macromarketing to save the world from marketing.

The provocative call “to save the world from marketing” is a very important addition to the purpose of macromarketing and ought to be reflected in the teaching of the subject by raising awareness that the world and marketing has to be saved from some marketing practice and that the macromarketing discipline is uniquely positioned for the task. Similarly important is Fisk’s claim that knowledge developed outside of macromarketing is critical for the development of our discipline. I am skeptical, however, of the uncritical faith in the potential of (new) technology as a problem solver. I do not wish to claim that this is the case in Fisk’s comment above, where technology is suggested as an effective response to a particular problem rather than as a problem solver per se. It nevertheless reminds me of the importance of stressing that technology is enabling and constraining at the same time. Because macromarketers make frequent references to the potential of new technology (e.g., Kozinets, Hemetsberger, and Schau 2008), I believe that, when teaching the subject, it is essential to discuss this potential in the context of possible and actual negative consequences to society. I shall come back to this point later. Before this, however, I shall return to the main subject of this commentary and explore how Sustainable Enterprise: A Macromarketing Approach relates to the development of the macromarketing field as outlined above.

Why Macromarketing Education Matters

Mark Peterson’s Sustainable Enterprise: A Macromarketing Approach advocates a holistic approach to the marketplace and aims to explain how business benefits from such a perspective. Although the book contains a discussion of the developmental versus critical school of macromarketing (Peterson 2012, Chapter 10), it is clearly written in the developmental tradition. Taking an optimistic–pragmatic view, the book concurs with the definition of macromarketing as “examining the interactions among, markets, marketing, and society.” It also has the potential to help educate future (macromarketing) marketers toward the vision of “a globally sustainable society” (Fisk 2006, 214) where societal and economic needs are recognized as shared values (Peterson 2012, Chapter 1, cf. Porter and Kramer 2011). The developmental perspective is endorsed in the preface where the author states that the book aims to demonstrate “how to operate in the marketplace with a social conscience and achieve profits” (Peterson 2012, Preface).

With an audience of master of business administration (MBA) students in mind, the author takes a managerial angle that wishes to move macromarketing scholarship “to the mainstream of marketing practice” (Peterson 2012, preface) by re-uniting the dilemma of achieving profits while operating with a social conscience. As such, the book has a strong entrepreneurial flavor, which is defined as “identifying and developing opportunities, regardless of the resources available” (ibid.). Consequently, the author asserts, very fairly, that readers will find Sustainable Enterprise: A Macromarketing Approach “refreshingly different.”

The book’s fifteen chapters are organized into five parts. Part one provides a detailed introduction to the macromarketing field, stressing the interplay of marketing and society and the roles of business and the state in society. Further parts are dedicated to the market, the environment, and equity defined as the development of markets and the alleviation of poverty. The book concludes with the suggestion that the future of marketing is market-based sustainability or macromarketing.

Considering that it has been written with an audience of MBA students in mind, the economic argument for operating “with a social conscience” as good business practice (i.e., with the potential to achieve profits) may indeed provide a fresh and meaningful perspective to the education of these future decision makers. Further evidence that the book is written in the developmental tradition is expressed by the desires not only to investigate societal aspects, but in the manner in which it demonstrates methods or improving them. Aided by the book’s entrepreneurial flavor, many opportunities for sustainable business practice are highlighted. For example, a section at the end of each chapter titled “Mavericks Who Made It” provides readers with practical examples of marketplace actors who demonstrate a social conscience while achieving profits. Based on the clearly stated assumption that it is essential for businesses to make profits, these real-life scenarios will resonate with MBA students.

But how might this book work for a non-MBA audience such as future students of Markets, Consumption & Society? The answer to this question depends on the purpose of the program that one teaches and thus the perspective of macromarketing to which one subscribes. Mature MBA students with experience in the labor market are expected to refine their practices and techniques by acting with a social conscience. The purpose of Markets, Consumption & Society is to educate the next generation of critically aware entrants into the graduate labor market. Thus, an appraisal can only be preliminary at this stage and demands a further assessment of the ethos in which a particular (macromarketing) program is embedded.

In order to evaluate Sustainable Enterprise: A Macromarketing Approach for its potential contribution to our attempt at teaching Markets, Consumption & Society, the compatibility of the book’s underlying assumptions with our current thinking is required. I therefore turn briefly to the ethos behind our existing marketing program, as well as the thinking that guides the development of our new program, before exploring how the book will work in practice for teaching Markets, Consumption & Society.

Teaching Markets, Consumption & Society

The values and beliefs of our approach to teaching are best expressed by two recent contributions from members of my subject group. The first is an introductory book to critical marketing (Hackley 2009a) and the other an entry to the program’s online weblog (blog). While the introduction to critical marketing shows the tradition in which our teaching is embedded, the second contribution is an elaboration on Holbrook’s (1985) thoughts on business interest in education and clarifies our desire for the existing marketing program to be divested of managerial relevancy (Bradshaw 2012).

The Importance of Critical Reflexivity

Hackley (2009a, 2) contrasts the managerial perspective that dominates much of today’s marketing education with a critical perspective when he metaphorically calls for “organic Marketing studies to balance the heavily processed, chemically constituted managerial Marketing brand.” Here, the managerial perspective is defined as fostering organizational effectiveness based on a value system that emphasizes wealth and value creation.

It is useful to clarify that the “managerialist” position (cf. Hackley 2009b) means firms may subsume their social responsibilities by embracing a form of agency theory where the role of management is to act “solely as an agent of the stockholder” (Laczniak and Murphy 2006, 160). As long as these agents follow the law, they can deny responsibility for their action’s environmental and social consequences. A critical marketing perspective provides a moral and intellectual counterpoint that encourages engagement in a critical discourse on aspects of marketing, thus exchanging “naive instrumentalism” for “critical reflexivity” (Hackley 2009a, 4). Acknowledging that this might be unsettling in a teaching context to those students who expect to learn from what is sometimes labeled best practice, a critical marketing perspective helps them to (1) engage with the typical criticism that the discipline faces (often from the outside), (2) understand why these criticisms are relevant, and (3) evaluate their importance (Hackley 2009a). This includes ethical and intellectual concerns, but also the fact “that Marketing falls considerably short of its claims as a management technique” (Hackley 2009, 5; cf. Sheth and Sisodia 2005).

The critical reflexivity stressed here is one important element to our teaching. Another is taking a nonvocational approach (Bradshaw 2012). I stated earlier that it is a continuation of Holbrook’s (1985) thoughts on business interest in education when my colleague calls “for a subject divested of managerial relevancy and a-relevant to commercial interest” (Bradshaw 2012, online). Over the past three decades (and probably much before that) there have been those arguing for and against this assertion and the conscious decision was made to clearly position our current marketing program as the reification of the former.

Now to our new program: Markets, Consumption & Society is currently being developed at my institution as a one-year full-time postgraduate marketing program and shares the ethos expressed above. Moreover, the new program adds to it a link with colleagues outside the discipline that Fisk (2006) has identified as being so important. It is envisioned that marketing faculty teaches half of the program, while faculty from sociology and criminology teaches the other half. At this point, I should stress that the inclusion of criminologists is unrelated to Holbrook’s (1985, 146) observation that while “the Greek Hermes or Roman Mercury served as the god of commerce, he was also the patron of thieves” (cf. Graves 1981). One has to admit, however, that tasking one god with looking after commerce and thievery hints at the societal implications of commerce. Thought further and more relevant to the discussion here, it also hints at the societal implications of marketing.

The Importance of Marketing’s Societal Implications

Some people steal what they want but are unable to afford, which means that thievery as an aspect of social life links to similar marketing implications that are well documented, such as a teenager selling a kidney to buy an iPad (British Broadcasting Corporation [BBC] 2012) or a gunshot incident among customers during the launch of a new pair of Nike basketball shoes (Duell 2011). While such examples may seem extreme, we can recognize that similar but less critical incidents regularly take place in contemporary societies fuelled by marketing and a culture of consumption. They therefore cannot be ignored by anyone dedicated to teaching at the intersection of marketing, markets, and society.

Thus for Markets, Consumption & Society, students will study social consequences within the critical school as identified by Mittelstaedt and Kilbourne (2008). We believe it is not enough to add “a social conscience” to marketing systems and practices. Rather, we must acknowledge that ultimately all marketing activity is potentially harmful to society. I would like to explain the practical meaning of this claim by briefly referring to the problem of inequality resulting from marketing activities and the subsequent exigencies for macromarketing education.

Marketing is commonly defined as “managing profitable customer relationships” by attracting new customers and by keeping and growing existing ones (Kotler and Armstrong 2008, 4). Although common definitions make reference to the promise of “superior value” and the delivery of “satisfaction,” marketing’s ultimate purpose is to contribute to growth by stimulating demand. While consumer societies themselves do not lead to inequality (Miller 2001), some firms driven by short-term gains engage in marketing practice that encourages some consumers to consume beyond their means. Rising levels of consumer debt can sustain demand for a period of time, but the effect is necessarily transitional and ultimately leads to further inequalities. Referring once again to Witkowski’s (2010, 4) claim that macromarketing should “save the world from marketing,” I believe that macromarketing education has to consider seriously the assertion that in developed economies, “we have got close to the end of what economic growth can do for us:” Anxiety, depression, and other social problems are on the rise, not happiness and well-being (Wilkinson and Pickett 2010, 5–6). This is not to deny the potential of a material culture to enhance the quality of life for some people (see Miller 2001). Instead, it is a reminder for macromarketers that in developed economies, it is necessary to explore the societal consequences of marketing systems without relying on growth and raising living standards as a means to enhance quality of life.

As noted earlier, macromarketing has traditionally taken a global focus and it is true that quality of life among citizens in societies with developing economies benefit from raising living standards: “What most of humanity desperately needs is more consumption, more pharmaceuticals, more housing, more transport, more books, more computers” (Miller 2001, 228). But even when investigating quality-of-life issues in developing economies, macromarketers should not limit themselves to only exploring ways that contribute to economic growth and raising living standards. Instead, macromarketing should also explore recommendations on how to deal with marketing’s societal implications that accompany economic growth and the raising of living standards. To me, this responsibility lies at the very core of macromarketing education.

A Macromarketing Approach to Teaching Markets, Consumption & Society

It is evident that the critical school of macromarketing best characterizes our attempt at teaching Markets, Consumption & Society while Sustainable Enterprise: A Macromarketing Approach has been written from the developmental perspective. Although the author speculates that someday a convergence of both views might occur (Peterson 2012, 18, Chapter 10), both perspectives differ substantially. Two examples from the book illustrate this well.

The first example contrasting the developmental versus critical school of macromarketing is related to a set of factors described in Chapter 1, which help turn “businesses to be mindful of society” (Peterson 2012, 9, Chapter 1, cf. Hollender and Breen 2011)). One of these factors is technological improvements that “increasingly gives power to individual consumers and citizens” thereby leading to the “age of accountability” (Peterson 2012, 9, Chapter 1, cf. Savitz and Weber 2006). While progress is being made toward transparency, it is not enough to just emphasize the capacity of technology to empower people. A general example is online banking, which gives power to individual consumers while at the same time placing an additional burden on them. This may not be a problem for many as they can justify the trade-off, but it has the potential to exclude some consumers, such as elderly people who find it too complicated to juggle passwords and access codes. An example more relevant to the age of accountability is access to information. In the book, it is argued that firms concerned with people and the environment find it easier to be recognized and rewarded by regularly providing reports to their various stakeholders. But these reports ultimately compete with all the other information that is constantly produced and made available. Thus a “cost of choice” exists and people counter their “information overload,” for example, by considering only initial search results (Lanier 2011, 201).

While I am not arguing against firms providing reports to their various stakeholders (instead of only to their shareholders), I do not believe that the call to do so should rest on the economic argument that this will be recognized and rewarded. Instead, those serious about acting “with a social conscience” should see this form of transparency as simply good practice. Should a firm, however, be driven by the need for recognition and reward (i.e., seeing transparency predominantly as a good marketing communications exercise), it has to deal with consumer’s “cost of choice.” Some marketers may argue that further improvements in technology (e.g., “intelligent filters”, see Lanier 2011, 201) will remedy this. This, however, only continues the circle by creating new problems for marketers and consumers. Intelligent filters, for example, shift power to those controlling the “filters” and therefore define their “intelligence,” thus ultimately “perpetuating the idea of a spy computer that knows what’s best” for consumers (Lanier 2011, 201). Firms wishing to be recognized and rewarded might not object to this, presumably, of course, only if the intelligence of the filter awards a higher relevance to the information they wish to communicate (which creates an entirely new problem if they don’t). Even if marketers benefit from “intelligent filters,” they become accomplices in “de-powering” the individual who now has to rely on a “spy computer,” thus ultimately negating the argument that technological advancements empower consumers and citizens. Relying uncritically on the problem-solving capacity of technological advancements is a form of “naive instrumentalism” that typically characterizes the managerial perspective. Consequently, critical reflexivity on the utility of technological improvements to empowering individuals provides a more complex, but ultimately more realistic assessment.

The second example from the book that contrasts the developmental versus critical school of macromarketing is a debate by Friedman, Mackey, and Rodgers (2005) described in Chapter 6. It begins with an entrepreneur criticizing Milton Friedman’s description of “corporate philanthropy as stealing from investors” (Peterson 2012, 12, Chapter 6). Instead, the entrepreneur argues that corporate philanthropy can be good business practice by using as an example his “5% Day” campaign where

five percent of a store’s total sales are directed to a nonprofit organization. The stores select the beneficiary groups and tend to focus on groups with large membership lists. Those on the list receive calls the week of the “5% Day” to shop the store to support the organization. This usually brings in hundreds of new or lapsed customers. In this way, the “5% Day” benefits a local group, but it is also an excellent marketing technique that has benefitted [investors] immensely over the years. (ibid., emphasis added)

The debate continues with Friedman’s assertion that because the above example contributes to profits, it also concurs with his claim that “the social responsibility of business is to increase profits” (Peterson 2012, 12, Chapter 6, cf. Friedman 1970). From the developmental perspective, the “5% Day” campaign describes a (positive) case of “market-based sustainability.” From a critical perspective, however, the attempt at combining philanthropy and profits appears more like a cynical marketing exercise that pesters consumers into buying more by appealing to their social conscience. In fact, I am much more intrigued by the description of “corporate philanthropy as stealing from investors” and suggest that instead of engaging in philanthropy, firms should pay appropriate taxes. I do realize the controversy of any statement that contains in it the word “tax,” which is why I do not wish to engage here in a discussion on what level of taxation might be appropriate. Instead, I would like to stress the importance of taxes in general to allow politics to work toward a sustainable future. Efforts originating from the market can accompany those of governments, but should not substitute them. Most importantly, market-based efforts should not be used as an argument against appropriate levels of taxation. Thus I support Miller’s (2001, 236) position that taxation should fund welfare and redistribution, and also to strengthen bureaucracy to restrain “the immoral effects of short-term competition-driven markets.”

Concluding Remarks

My own “European” skepticism on business contrasts the optimism and pragmatism inherent to Sustainable Enterprise: A Macromarketing Approach. My skepticism leads me to oppose attempts that give priority to “market-based solutions” as a remedy for societal and environmental issues. Thus I suggest that they ought to be greeted with more than just a healthy dash of suspicion as their benefits are typically advocated by those guided by either ideology or self-interest. For example, many business leaders and entrepreneurs are advocates of “market-based solutions” simply because it helps them to avoid stricter regulation and to weaken the call for appropriate levels of taxation. This can further aggravate public antagonism toward a capitalist system that is being perceived as failing while still rewarding “the architects of failure” (Szmigin and Rutherford 2012, 1). The illusion that all it takes to withstand environmental or economic crisis is to accumulate sufficient capital for oneself is a form of naivety that I see as a major obstacle toward a sustainable future. This leads me to believe that any form of market-based sustainability does not have the potential to solve the sustainability problem. Gratifying as it may be to those business people who operate with a social conscience, it only has the potential to work toward a sustainable future, not to solve the underlying problem of an unsustainable lifestyle. Paraphrasing Oscar Wilde, I thus worry about a remedy that, instead of providing cure, prolongs the disease (Dowling 2001, 127).

In contrast, Sustainable Enterprise: A Macromarketing Approach takes a much more optimistic and pragmatic approach, palpable throughout the book. Optimism is expressed, for example, by highlighting the problem-solving capacities of entrepreneurs and the belief that if business, government, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) combine their efforts, they can be “effective in reducing the scale and scope” of many of the world’s problems (Peterson 2012, 25, Chapter 15). Pragmatism is expressed by a call for “[p]ursuing market-based sustainability in business” (ibid., 24) instead of engaging in a wide-ranging critique that ultimately results in questioning the very system in which we live.

The critical and developmental modes of macromarketing thought have in common their opposition to the managerialist perspective. It is this position that Sustainable Enterprise: A Macromarketing Approach argues against by advocating a middle ground between the managerialist and critical perspectives. The middle ground advocated in the book asserts that firms have a social responsibility, but gives preference to entrepreneurial solutions over an explicit call for government intervention.

Although the term carries political baggage in some circles, I find “the third way” suitable to describe the middle ground advocated in Sustainable Enterprise: A Macromarketing Approach. Similar to Giddens’ (1998) original intention to reform what he believes to be of value (and arguing vehemently against “rightist thinking”), so is this book an attempt by its author to reform what he believes to be of value: moving business toward a sustainable future by arguing against the managerialist agenda. We share this goal for our program on Markets, Consumption & Society and I am hoping that we will be successful in encouraging our students to reflect on all three perspectives: managerialist, critical, and developmental. Sustainable Enterprise: A Macromarketing Approach will be useful in exploring the third way, although I do hope that one day we will read the review for a successor titled Sustainable Society: A Macromarketing Approach!

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Isabelle Szmigin, Darryn Mitussis, Pauline Maclaran, Alan Bradshaw, and Chris Hackley for their valuable comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this commentary.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

References

BBC (2012), “China Arrests after Kidney Sold for iPad,” (accessed June 1, 2012), [available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-17640209].

Bradshaw

Alan

(2012), “Morris Holbrook and Business Interest in Education,” (accessed February 10, 2012), [available at http://royalhollowaymarketing.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/morris-holbrook-and-business-interest.html].

Dowling

Linda, ed.

(2001), Oscar Wilde: The Soul of Man under Socialism & Selected Critical Prose. London, UK: Penguin.

Duell

Mark

(2011), “Arrests, Pepper Spray, Gunshots, Brawls and Doors Pulled Off Hinges: Chaos at Stores across U.S. as Thousands of Shoppers Scramble for New Nike Air Jordans,” (accessed June 1, 2012), [available at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2078134/Chaos-U-S-stores-thousands-shoppers-scramble-new-Nike-Air-Jordans.html].

Edelman Trust Barometer (2010), “Edelman Trust Barometer Executive Summary,” (accessed May 1, 2012), [available at http://edelman.com/trust/2010/docs/2010_Trust_Barometer_Executive_Summary.pdf].

Fisk

George

(2006), “Envisioning a Future for Macromarketing,” Journal of Macromarketing, 26 (2), 214–218.

Friedman

Milton

Mackey

John

Rodgers

T. J.

(1970), “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits,” The New York Times Magazine, September 13. (accessed May 1, 2012), [available at http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html].

Friedman

Milton

(2005), “Rethinking the Social Responsibility of Business,” (accessed May 1, 2012), [available at http://reason.com/archives/2005/10/01/rethinking-the-social-responsi].

Giddens

Anthony

(1998), The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

10.

Graves

Robert

(1981), Greek Myths. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

11.

Hackley

Chris

(2009a), Marketing: A Critical Introduction. London, England: Sage.

12.

Hackley

Chris

(2009b), “Parallel Universes and Disciplinary Space: The Bifurcation of Managerialism and Social Science in Marketing Studies,” Journal of Marketing Management, 25 (7/8), 643–659.

13.

Holbrook

Morris B.

(1985), “Why Business Is Bad for Consumer Research: The Three Bears Revisited,” Advances in Consumer Research, 12 (1), 145–156.

14.

Hollender

Jeffrey

Breen

Bill

(2010), The Responsibility Revolution: How the Next Generation of Businesses Will Win. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

15.

Hunt

Shelby D.

(1976), “The Nature and Scope of Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 40 (3), 17–28.

16.

Hunt

Shelby D.

, (2002), Foundations of Marketing Theory: Toward a General Theory of Marketing. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

17.

Kotler

Philip

Armstrong

Gary

(2008), Principles of Marketing, 12th ed. Harlow, UK: Pearson.

18.

Kozinets

Robert V.

Hemetsberger

Andrea

Schau

Hope Jensen

(2008), “The Wisdom of Consumer Crowds,” Journal of Macromarketing, 28 (4), 339–354.

19.

Laczniak

Gene R.

Murphy

Patrick E.

(2006), “Normative Perspectives for Ethical and Socially Responsible Marketing,” Journal of Macromarketing, 26 (2), 154–177.

20.

Lanier

Jaron

(2011), You Are Not a Gadget, updated ed. London, UK: Penguin.

21.

Miller

Daniel

(2001), “The Poverty of Morality,” Journal of Consumer Culture, 1 (2), 225–243.

22.

Mittelstaedt

John D.

Kilbourne

William E.

(2008), “Macromarketing Perspectives on Sustainable Consumption,” paper presented at the 2nd Conference of the Sustainable Consumption Research Exchange (SCORE!) Network, Brussels, Belgium (March 10-11).

23.

Peterson

Mark

(2012), Sustainable Enterprise: A Macromarketing Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

24.

Porter

Michael E.

Kramer

Mark R.

(2011), “Creating Shared Value: How to Reinvent Capitalism—And Unleash a Wave of Innovation and Growth,” Harvard Business Review, 89 (1/2), 62–77.

25.

Savitz

Andrew W.

Weber

Karl

(2006), The Triple Bottom Line: How Today's Best-Run Companies Are Achieving Economic, Social and Environmental Success—And How You Can Too. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

26.

Sheth

Jagdish N.

Sisodia

Rajendra

(2005), “Does Marketing Need Reform?,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (4), 10–12.

27.

Shultz, Clifford

J.,

II (2012), “Vietnam: Political Economy, Marketing System,” Journal of Macromarketing, 32 (1), 7–17.

28.

Szmigin

Isabelle

Rutherford

Robert

(2012), “Shared Value and the Impartial Spectator Test,” Journal of Business Ethics, May, 10, 1–12.

29.

Wilkinson

Richard

Pickett

Kate

(2010), The Spirit Level: Why Equality Is Better for Everyone. London, UK: Penguin.

30.

Witkowski

Terrence H.

(2010), “Macromarketing: Making an Impact,” Journal of Macromarketing, 30 (1), 4–5.