Abstract
Is sustainability a megatrend? If so, what does it mean to be a megatrend, and how can macromarketing advance our understanding of sustainability as a megatrend? This article makes three contributions to research on sustainability as megatrend. First, if offers a set of elemental criteria to understand the concept of a megatrend. Megatrends are complex in nature, whose understanding requires the skills and perspectives of macromarketers. Second, this article articulates two schools of thought in Macromarketing scholarship, a Developmental School and a Critical School. The former operates from the premise that marketing systems are important parts of the solution to the human condition, while the latter operates from the premise that they are part of the problem. Each concludes that sustainability is the megatrend of our time, but for different reasons. Finally, this article offers directions for macromarketing scholars, who are uniquely positioned to explore sustainability as megatrend.
Introduction
Is sustainability a megatrend? If so, what does it mean to be a megatrend, and how can macromarketing advance our understanding of sustainability as a megatrend? The purpose of this article is to understand the scientific parameters of megatrends, address whether sustainability meets these parameters, and consider what macromarketing has to say about sustainability as a megatrend. In the process, we conclude that macromarketing is not of a single voice on this issue, that macromarketing implications vary among the voices, but that nevertheless macromarketing inevitably is indispensable to any truly sustainable initiative on sustainability.
Sustainability is an important issue afforded considerable thought within the domain of macromarketing. Macromarketing has addressed issues of marketing and the environment consistently for nearly four decades, from Fisk’s (1967, 1973, 1974) work on marketing and the environment, and considerations of socially responsible consumption (Antil 1984; Leigh, Murphy and Enis 1988), to the question of environmentalism as a macro-priority for market organization and market actors (Dobscha and Ozanne 2001; Kilbourne, McDonagh and Prothero 1997; Kilbourne and Mittelstaedt 2012; Prothero, et al. 2011; Shultz and Holbrook 1999), and the function of sustainability in marketing functions (Arvidsson 2008; Kilbourne 2004; McDonagh, Dobscha and Prothero 2012; Prothero, McDonagh and Dobscha 2010).
Concurrent with this, theoretical developments in macromarketing (Mittelstaedt, Kilbourne and Mittelstaedt 2006) and domain parameters (Layton and Grossbart 2006) over the last three decades have established two important schools of thought in macromarketing (Mittelstaedt, Kilbourne and Mittelstaedt 2006; Mittelstaedt and Kilbourne 2008; Peterson 2013). There is a Developmental School of Macromarketing that sees markets and marketing as fundamental tools for social development and human welfare. As well, there is a Critical School of Macromarketing, which is more suspect of the social consequences of markets and marketing. Put another way, the Developmental School sees markets and marketing systems as part of the solution to the problems of the human condition; the Critical School sees markets and marketing as part of the problem (Mittelstaedt, Kilbourne and Shultz, forthcoming). What they have to say about sustainability rests on the acceptance or rejection of the context in which questions of sustainability have emerged.
As we will attempt to demonstrate in this article, both schools of thought in macromarketing come to the conclusion that sustainability is a megatrend. Both schools recognize sustainability is a megatrend – a trend that is simultaneously economic, political, cultural, philosophic and technological in nature; that is vast in scope; and which reflects the economic, political, cultural, philosophic and technological milieu of its day – but reach this conclusion for very different reasons. The Developmental School argues that sustainability is a megatrend of innovation within the Dominant Social Paradigm of Western industrial society, and finds room for sustainable business practice through the mental models (Perlmutter and Trist 1986) or market logics (Layton 2009) of the current marketing system. By contrast, the Critical School argues that sustainability must be seen as a megatrend that alters “the parameters of the social architecture of institutions” (Perlmutter and Trist 1986, p. 2). In this case, the role of macromarketing scholarship is to reimagine the underlying beliefs about the role of markets and marketing systems, consistent with the environmental imperative of our day. At their core, the developmental and critical schools differ in terms of what they see at the core of the sustainability question, the marketing system that provides for the daily needs of all humanity, or the environment that sustains life itself.
This article first develops a conceptual model of megatrends, and addresses whether sustainability meets the elements of a megatrend. Second, it considers the dimensions of the Dominant Social Paradigm of Western industrial societies for their relationship to sustainability with a brief description of how each dimension has emerged. Third, it considers how both schools of thought consider sustainability, within the elements of the Western Dominant Social Paradigm. Finally, this article concludes with thoughts on how distinguishing between the Developmental and Critical schools can advance our understanding of sustainability in macromarketing scholarship, and considerations for future research and the imperative of a macromarketing research-ethos.
What are Megatrends?
The term “megatrend” was coined by John Naisbitt (1982) to describe the significant social, economic, political and/or technological movements that shape our lives. Megatrends are larger in magnitude, longer in duration, and deeper in their effects than normal trends, fads or fashion. Naisbitt and Aburdene (1990) say, “Megatrends do not come and go readily. These large social, economic, political, and technological changes are slow to form, and once in place, they influence us for some time…” (p. 12).
Though neither Naisbitt (Naisbitt 1982; Naisbitt and Aburdene 1990; Naisbitt and Naisbitt 2000) nor anyone else dwells on the anatomy of megatrends, several aspects can be gleaned by studying historic and contemporary examples of megatrends. This article offers a conceptual model to define megatrend as a social science construct.
First, megatrends are complex combinations of economic, political, cultural, philosophic, and technological factors, in their origin. Regardless of their single or multiple origins, though, they tend to shape all aspects of society. The introduction of small, cheap, reliable automobiles from Japan to the United States reflected the economic circumstances of both countries, but had social, economic and political consequences far beyond the function of transportation, changing the number and role of automobiles in families and society (Halberstam 1986).
Second, megatrends are seismic in their effect, both in time and space. While not apparent at the time, for example, the emergence of the printing press had far reaching effects on political, religious and economic structures, exceeding the imaginations of the developers of movable type (Childress 2007). Once initiated, megatrends, in effect, take on a life of their own and are not easily controlled, even by those who play significant roles in their formation.
Megatrends furthermore can differ in their magnitude, from the effects of the introduction of a new technology (e.g., the quality revolution in business (Naisbitt and Aburdene 1990)) to the emergence of a new, internally consistent world view such as that brought on by the transition from feudalism to agricultural capitalism. The impact of the former may be quite apparent to members of society. But through the social construction of reality (Berger and Luckmann 1966; Weick 1969), the impact of the latter may be so widely shared and taken for granted by members of a society that it “is implicit rather than explicit in what they feel and think and in the courses of action they undertake” (Perlmutter and Trist 1986, p. 2).
Finally, megatrends emerge in the context of their times, and as a product of the residue of previous megatrends. For example, the emergence of market-oriented socialism (Naisbitt and Aburdene 1990) was predicated on (1) the existence of socialism as a worldview, and (2) the opportunities presented by reforms to floundering command economies, from China to the remnants of a disintegrated Soviet Union and its client states. The corollary of this is that megatrends cannot emerge except in the context of present circumstance and previous megatrends.
In these ways, megatrends reflect the arc of macromarketing scholarship regarding the nature of markets and marketing systems. Markets are complex systems. They reflect the formal, informal and philosophic antecedents of their context and they have impacts well beyond those directly involved in trade (Mittelstaedt, Kilbourne and Mittelstaedt 2006). Given this, as a topic of interest to marketing, megatrends can best be understood through the lens of macromarketing. For example, macromarketing offers the ability to understand the origins, complexity and consequence of the introduction and adoption of bread-slicing machines, and to address whether the introduction of sliced bread constituted a megatrend. The rapid adoption of the bread-slicing machines by bakeries in 1928, for example, occurred within the complex combination of falling costs of transportation, increasing scale economies in baking, the development of bags that prevented sliced bread from drying-out, and the social perception that softness indicated freshness (Bobrow-Strain 2012). The surprising fast adoption of sliced bread by households reflected the deep social conviction of the early 20th century that science could improve the quality of food, and that uniformity of slices reflected the precision and superiority of modernity. Finally, the adoption of bread-slicing machines changed the structure and scale of the baking industry, fostered the growth of related markets in butter, jam and jelly, and processed meat, changed the role of the sandwich in the American diet, and became a metaphor for radical innovation (Bobrow-Strain 2012). Each of these is a macromarketing issue, and we propose that macromarketing as a field of study is particularly well suited to understand the complexity and impact of megatrends.
If sustainability is categorized as a megatrend within the macromarketing literature, then its importance as a research topic will be enhanced. If this is the case then the motivation for examining the problems of sustainability within the macromarketing literature will be greater. Because of its multidisciplinary perspective, macromarketing has a unique capacity to reframe the concept of sustainability giving it both importance and legitimacy in the future.
Does Sustainability Qualify as a Megatrend?
We propose that megatrends are complex in nature, extensive in their impact, and reflective of their historic context. Given these formative elements of a megatrend, one might ask whether sustainability qualifies as a megatrend? We address each element, in order.
First, can the origins of sustainability be traced to clearly definable shifts in economic, political, cultural, philosophic, or technological aspects of society? Lubin and Esty (2010) lay out the origins of sustainability as six-fold: the rise of environmental issues on the ability of firms to deliver customer value; the globalization of business, increasing magnitude and importance of environmental pressures and liabilities; rising competition for natural resources; the consideration of externalities in business decision making; consumer demand for sustainable products and processes; and the recognition that sustainable products and services can be profitable. None of these factors existed – or were widely appreciated – in the 1960s, at the time of the last major environmental movement. In that time, firms generally believed environmental regulations to be antithetical to customer value. The current wave of globalization did not begin until the U.S. released its money supply from the gold standard (Eichengreen and Flandreau 1997). Resources were perceived to be abundant; externalities were not yet understood as the concern of business; consumer demand for green products was limited; and business did not see green as profitable. In many ways, these factors are what separate the current sustainability revolution from previous environmental movements. Based on this, we conclude that sustainability meets the first criterion of a megatrend.
Second, does sustainability hold the potential to be seismic in scope and impact? Paul Hawken (2007) documents the origins and impact of the worldwide movement of people and organizations dedicated to sustainability. He concludes that sustainability is a broad, decentralized movement, with no orthodox ideology and no single leader or political organization. Still, we submit this movement can be found in many countries, with a potentially transforming effect on the culture and politics of most. While sustainability is still in its early stage and lack of organization might limit its short-term, strategic impact, the lack of structure to its origins makes it almost impossible to stop. This makes it worldwide in nature, if not yet global in its impact. To our estimation, it meets the seismic standard of a megatrend.
Finally, can sustainability as a megatrend be understood in the context of previous social, political and technological trends? The viability of sustainability as a megatrend must be considered in the context in which it has emerged. The same is true for any understanding of sustainability as a macromarketing megatrend. In this case, one must understand the dominant ways of thinking of the time to understand how sustainability challenges the assumptions of the status quo. Because the need for sustainability reflects the excesses of civil organization, and because it challenges many of the assumptions around which we organize markets and marketing systems (Kilbourne, McDonagh and Prothero 1997), we conclude that sustainability can be understood only in the context of previous social, political and technological trends, and as such meets this element of a megatrend.
Combined, these elements indicate that sustainability is indeed a megatrend. What does this mean for the study of sustainability in the context of markets and marketing systems? Macromarketing offers two competing perspectives which must be understood to address this question. To understand the distinction between these perspectives, and what they mean for macromarketing research, we must first understand how the Dominant Social Paradigm shapes our thinking.
Dominant Social Paradigm and the Theory of Macromarketing
Kilbourne, McDonagh and Prothero (1997) introduced the concept of the Dominant Social Paradigm into the marketing literature to understand why we associate consumption with quality of life. The basic function of the Dominant Social Paradigm of any culture is to provide the social lens through which groups and individuals interpret their world. As such, it also serves to legitimize the institutions supporting the dominant groups in society. The institutions themselves then lead to specific courses of political, economic and social action. One of the main characteristics of the Dominant Social Paradigm is that it is embedded in social relations to the extent that its directions and propositions become self-evident and require no explanation or justification.
While there is no consensus on the elements of the Dominant Social Paradigm, five dimensions can be frequently found in its use. These are technological, political, economic, anthropocentric, and competitive. It is argued that each of these dimensions exists for any society, but what varies is a society's position on each of the dimensions. In the Dominant Social Paradigm of Western industrial societies, for example, each society would occupy higher positions on each of the dimensions but not necessarily equal positions. All societies have some variation of these dimensions, and the variation that is prevalent in a particular society becomes its Dominant Social Paradigm. Moreover, the Dominant Social Paradigms of Western industrial societies are of particular importance in examining sustainability. A brief explanation of each of the relevant dimensions follows, including their origins in Western thought, and their implications for markets and marketing systems.
Elements of the dominant social paradigm
Technological optimism
While technological change has been occurring since the dawn of humankind, and its impact has been enormous, the systematic development of technology has been relatively recent, reaching back “only” a few thousand years. By the early 1600s a new age had dawned with Francis Bacon (1899), who made a systematic and reasoned appeal for the experimental method in science. He argued that the progress of science was for the purpose of making the conditions of life more comfortable for humans. This effectively unified science and technology in a single endeavor and guided technological development in the pursuit of progress in which “progress” became identified with enhancing the material existence of human society.
The success of this project is virtually indisputable if one simply observes the convenience of material existence in Western societies. Thus, it is not surprising that individuals in these cultures would become technological optimists who see technology as the solution to all problems, both material and social. More recently, however, the theory of technology has begun to raise doubts about the universal value of progress so defined. It is now understood that with advancing technological progress new ways of life are being created in which the indirect effects of technological change remain unexamined. These include social changes such as family relations and work relations and physical changes such as resource depletion and global warming. This is a case of what Postman (1993) refers to as culture conspiring against itself.
Our immersion into the technological world is so ubiquitous that it becomes effectively invisible, creating a type of technological somnambulism in which the real consequences of technological change go unnoticed. This is a qualitative break from the past in which the world was seen as an organic whole rather than a mechanical representation. In the organic world, stewardship of nature was the common attitude, but in the mechanical metaphor, use, repair and discard is the accepted relationship with nature. In the mechanical metaphor, nature is deconstructed and demystified through science and technology and is then opened to legitimate domination and exploitation (Merchant 1980).
Political liberalism and possessive individualism
The political dimension of the Dominant Social Paradigm is based predominantly on the philosophy of John Locke developed in the late 17th century following the political upheaval of the English Civil War. It grew out of the remnants of the previous political world. Among the constructs that Locke (1690/1988) legitimized in his political philosophy were possessive individualism, private property, and limited democratic government. Each of these is important both in its own right and as the necessary conditions for the development of economic liberalism in the next century.
Possessive individualism is the principle that individuals in society are separate entities (atomism) who are in possession of themselves. As such, they are free from the will of others and enter into social relations voluntarily. Among these relations are economic relations based on the principle of the alienation of labor through which individuals can sell their labor to another in market exchanges. The only condition controlling individuals is their perception of their interest. It is the sum of these relationships that constitutes civil society. It is the possessive individual who legitimizes private property.
The influence of Locke’s conception of private property on sustainability cannot be overestimated. Applying one’s labor to nature creates private property, and in doing so the possessive individual has exclusive rights to the property. In addition, because nature in its natural state is considered a waste, the more one labors to create private property, the better off society. This has two important consequences for sustainability. The first is that Locke transforms accumulation of wealth from a vice to a virtue, and justifies the unequal distribution of wealth as the rational outcome of market relations. Second, since both the people and their private property require protection in society, protection becomes the legitimate and only function of government. That is, the functions of government are limited to enforcing contracts legitimately entered into and to protecting individuals and their private property.
Economic liberalism
Economic liberalism grew out of the political liberalism of Locke, and it began with Adam Smith (1776) who justified the role of the market in allocating resources efficiently. The political elements required for economic liberalism were those that had been introduced by Locke. Under the institutions of possessive individualism, private property and limited government, the market society fructified and became the summum bonum of progress. The market under this assumption, when free from government interference and individual control, resulted in a institution through which the allocation of scarce resources would be most efficient because no entity had the power to influence the outcome. With the addition of self-interest as the sole motivator of exchange, the greatest good would come to society.
So the key elements of economic liberalism become conceptualized as atomistic individuals motivated exclusively by self-interest who are tied together through exchange relations in free markets. Market efficiency provides the mechanism through which the working of the market is measured. Political liberalism provides the backdrop that makes this possible. Of particular note in this relationship is the absence of justice or fairness as criteria for the distribution of wealth generated in market exchanges and the recognition of nature as a tertiary party to the exchange relations. This became an important omission later, however.
Smith (1776) did consider this the process through which the wealth of nations would be enhanced. What he did not consider fully was the consequence of this system on both human relations and relations with nature. It was left to John Stuart Mill a century later to fully articulate the issues. Mill (1859/1989) did consider fully both the fairness of wealth distribution and the consequences of continued growth on nature and resource availability in his articulation of the economics of the steady state. These chapters in his book remain one of the first and best expressions of environmental sustainability. He argues that continuous economic growth will serve society for a foreseeable future after which market participants will have to find satisfaction and growth in other areas. He further argued that increased development was not predicated on continued growth in material production and consumption. Why we have failed, as yet, to heed his warning is the subject of the next section, and relates to the human relationship with nature that developed contiguously with technology, politics and economics.
Anthropocentrism
The fundamental proposition within the anthropocentric view is that humans are different from, and superior to, the rest of nature. This is a product of dominion theology and has been strengthened by developments in science and technology in the Christian world. As a result of these forces, the relationship between humans and nature has evolved in the modern world into one of exploitation and domination. Through science and technology, nature has been demystified and disenchanted (Lewis 1947). The consequence of this transformation has been the reduction of nature to instrumental value in the service of the human condition. Bacon, in his quest to better the conditions of human existence, used metaphors such as commanding and torturing nature to reveal her secrets. This is a clear expression of superiority over nature that is a part of the Dominant Social Paradigm today.
The instrumental view of nature in competitive market societies may result in the degradation of nature through both the public goods problem and the tragedy of the commons. In the first case public goods will be under-produced and in the second natural commons will be destroyed. Arguably, these processes might be reduced if nature were imbued with intrinsic value. This suggests a view of nature in which the consequences of anthropocentrism are reduced, though not necessarily eliminated. But it requires a form of weak anthropocentrism in which nature is given additional value based on its existence and autopoietic value. Weak anthropocentrism leaves room for sustainability provided that increasing competitive forces do not undermine it.
Because modern liberal society associates progress with material gain, it follows that nature’s role as provider of scarce resources results from economic reductionism that equates nature’s value to the economic. The intrinsic value of nature has been traded away in the reductionist process that Ehrenfeld (1978) has referred to as the “arrogance of humanism.” Sustainability may require a reversal of this trend.
Competition versus Collaboration
Since the beginning of the Enlightenment in the late 17th century, philosophers have thought that competition between entities is the natural mode of existence. Thomas Hobbes (1650), for example, took competition as the natural force that motivates men to destroy each other unless constrained by a powerful political leader. The Westphalian model of relations between countries suggests that nations are independent and exist in competitive relations with one another. Adam Smith mentioned the “propensity to truck and barter” and in the 19th century Charles Darwin theorized fierce competition in nature and Herbert Spencer in social relations. Contemporary aphorisms such as “survival of the fittest” and “to the winner go the spoils” affirm that the spirit of competition is alive and well. When conflated with the technological, political, economic, and anthropocentric elements of the Dominant Social Paradigm, competition for the accumulation of material wealth is what life is about in Western industrial societies. Because the proscriptions against excess have been virtually eliminated, this leads to the profligate use of resources as individuals in developed economies consume resources well beyond their real needs, and consumers in less developed economies aspire to consume beyond their needs (Ger and Belk 1996). It is becoming increasingly apparent that, while competition may produce more goods and more innovation, it frequently leaves the destruction of nature in its wake.
These elements of the Dominant Social Paradigm represent antecedent conditions for the development of the materialistic lifestyle antithetical to sustainability. Consequently, the critical school of Macromarketing contends that these institutions need to be addressed in the sustainability discourse. Whether this must be done directly through global policy or indirectly through rewards and punishments for individual consumers (market adjustments) is still in question.
We propose that the Dominant Social Paradigm, which emerged from the Age of the Enlightenment, provides the dimensions on which we can understand how macromarketing can advance our understanding of sustainability as a megatrend. Whether and how this is done can be seen from two perspectives, one developmental, one critical.
Two Schools of Thought in Macromarketing
Macromarketing is generally regarded to be the study of marketing systems, the effects of marketing on society, and the effects of society on marketing (Hunt 1981). It takes as its primary unit of analysis the market or marketing system, society, or the environment, and tends to focus on the complexity of marketing systems, their antecedents, and the systemic consequences of exchange (Mittelstaedt, Kilbourne and Mittelstaedt 2006). To address questions of systems, antecedents and consequences, this article identifies two contrasting schools of thought, the Developmental School and the Critical School. The former sees markets and marketing systems as antecedents for economic development and societal well-being; the latter sees markets and marketing systems as having more mixed consequences. In their conclusions, Mittelstaedt, Kilbourne and Mittelstaedt (2006) allude to this distinction when they ask,
“…[A]re marketing systems a condition for, or a consequence of, economic development? The development perspective in macromarketing argues it is a precondition, while the critical school argues that marketing systems are the inevitable consequence. The ability of markets to improve the lives of people depends on the answer. Are negative externalities indications of marketing system failures, or are they the unavoidable consequences of efficient systems working as they were intended? Comparing and contrasting the principles underlying each perspective may shed light on common ground, to the benefit of developing and emerging economies and their citizens” (p. 138).
We preface these descriptions with the acknowledgement that these two perspectives are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and in many ways rely on each other for the advancement of thought and improvements to societal well-being. Understanding market and/or policy failures – particularly their causes and the social traps that promulgate them – often leads to more responsible development, frequently through constructive engagement (Shultz 2007). Such understanding requires the tools and insights of the Critical School. Thus, criticism is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for development. Still, the primary perspective that one adopts toward the relationships between marketing and society profoundly shapes how one approaches the study of macromarketing. We propose the same is true for how we think about sustainability.
The developmental school
The Developmental School argues that marketing systems play a positive role in economic development and societal well-being. This approach focuses attention on issues such as metrics for measuring quality of life (e.g., Ahuvia and Friedman 1998; Peterson and Malhotra 1997; Lee and Sirgy 2004). Here, we see markets and marketing as necessary provisioning systems for food, shelter, clothing, health care and education, and as the building blocks for socioeconomic development (Cordell 1993; Dahringer 1983; Dahringer and Hilger 1985; Dominguez and Vanmarcke 1987; Etgar 1983; Hosley and Wee 1998; Joy and Ross 1989; Klein and Nason 2001; Nason, Robert, Nikhilesh, and McCleavey 1987). Markets and marketing play a role in civil reconstruction in areas of conflict, as well as societies that are transitioning from dysfunctional policy and might be considered “ongoing concerns” (Dröge, et al. 1993; Shultz, et al. 2005; Shultz 2007). The underlying assumption is that marketing systems can and do improve people’s lives (see Mittelstaedt and Shultz (2009) for an overview of this Journal’s special issue on development, featuring eclectic perspectives and foci toward better understanding between development and well-being).
Several themes are present in the perspective of the developmental school. First, well-regulated markets are a force for improving life-quality. This conclusion contrasts with the assumption that markets and marketing are the consequence of economic development, a perspective that sees marketing as evidence of societal excess. This perspective extends back to Chamberlin (1933) and Cox (1959), who saw competition as evidence of heterogeneous demand, rather than market inefficiency.
Second, institutions play a critical role in developing environments for marketing systems to flourish (Arndt 1981; Cadeaux 2004; Carman 1982; Harris and Carman 1983, 1986). Mittelstaedt, Kilbourne and Mittelstaedt (2006) argue that three forms of institutions, formal (such as rule of law), informal (such as family structure) and philosophic (such as an ideology of consumption), in combination shape the outcomes of marketing systems. This means that formal institutions like rule of law, as well as informal institutions like ethical norms, affect the success or failure of marketing systems.
Finally, the dynamic nature of markets and marketing make them social catalysts. For example, markets and marketing systems serve as the formation of community identity (Branchik 2002; Branchik and Davis 2009; Speece 1990). The Developmental School focuses on how we work within the system of marketing to improve people’s lives, including affecting individual and systemic changes that can enhance sustainability, which in turn enhances the probability that an acceptable or desirable life-quality for future generations is ensured.
Macromarketing scholarship of the Developmental School dealing with issues of sustainability includes Antil’s (1984) measurement and validation of socially responsible consumption behavior, Leigh, Murphy and Enis’ (1988) understanding of socially responsible behavior, and findings by Pelton et al. (1993) that attitudes toward recycling, opportunities, and positive and negative rewards predict recycling behavior. Recent work on sustainability from the Developmental perspective includes Mitchell, Wooliscroft and Higham’s (2010) proposal for a sustainable marketing orientation as managerial strategy, while Lewin, Strutton and Paswan (2011) identify structural and institutional challenges to the development of natural gas marketing and distribution. Thøgersen (2010) compares organic food consumption across national boundaries, and concludes that the diffusion of organic food through marketing systems depends on political regulation, access to capital and national labeling systems.
The critical school
The Critical School, on the other hand, postulates that markets as provisioning systems are neither stable nor sustainable, and that the gains of marketing to human welfare come at the expense of others (in other societies, or in future generations) or the environment. The Critical School rejects the tenets of the Dominant Social Paradigm, opting instead for exploration of other sets of organizing principles for societal well-being. By rejecting the assumptions inherent in the Dominant Social Paradigm, the Critical School is free to operate outside many of the cornerstone axioms of positivist tradition in the social sciences, such as the assumption of natural equilibriums in economics (Mittelstaedt, Kilbourne and Mittelstaedt 2006) or the primacy of materialism (Ger and Belk 1996; Kilbourne, et al 2009). Further, separation from the Dominant Social Paradigm both necessitates and offers the opportunity to explore alternative forms of analysis, including historical analysis (Branchik 2002; Branchik and Davis 2009), literary criticism (Holbrook 2000), commodity discourse (Prothero, McDonagh and Dobscha 2010) and film criticism (Belk 2011; Holbrook 2005; McDonagh and Brereton 2010).
The Critical School views the driving force of marketing systems as an ideology of consumption (Kilbourne, McDonagh and Prothero 1997; Kilbourne and Mittelstaedt 2012), or the belief that most problems facing humanity have a consumption solution. Marketing systems are the mechanism through which consumption is satisfied, if and only if two assumptions can be made: free choice and continuous growth (Kilbourne, Beckman and Thelen 2002; Kilbourne 2004; Varey 2012). The realities of political economy preclude the equitable distribution of the former, while the environmental limits of the earth prevent the latter, in the long run.
The Critical School and Developmental school share the perspective that a Dominant Social Paradigm governs the world in which we live. Where they differ is in their belief of the value added by the Dominant Social Paradigm. The developmental school tacitly accepts the Dominant Social Paradigm, and sees solutions for the challenges of sustainability within the framework of the Dominant Social Paradigm. The Critical School sees the Dominant Social Paradigm as the foundation of the problems we face, in terms of overcoming the challenges of sustainability.
Much of the work on sustainability in macromarketing comes from the Critical School, as an extension of environmental awareness. For example, Kilbourne, McDonagh and Prothero’s (1997) articulation of the Dominant Social Paradigm was in the context of sustainable consumption and quality of life. Recent sustainability work in the tradition of the Critical School includes Varey’s (2012) conclusion that responsible marketing behavior is not consistent with sustainable markets and marketing, McDonagh and Brereton’s (2010) analysis of the Dominant Social Paradigm in business genre films, and Prothero, McDonagh and Dobscha’s (2010) examination of global sustainability through green commodity discourse. Kadirov (2011) argues that our anthropocentrism leads us to make trade-offs between human welfare and the environment, while Varey (2012) urges us to rethink marketing effectiveness as a better-not-more life orientation.
Can Macromarketing Advance Our Understanding of Sustainability as a Megatrend?
The fundamental challenges of sustainability are problems of consumption (Stern 2000). We produce to consume, and our appetite is voracious. We tend to consume as if there is an unlimited supply of resources, but we live in a world of non-renewable resources. At some point, our consumption will outstrip the limited supply of materials necessary for our demand. How do the Developmental and Critical schools approach this problem?
The Developmental School approaches sustainability as a problem – or opportunity – to be solved. From this perspective, the origins of environmental problems can be found in our failure to consider the consequences of technological solutions to human problems, because of inability or unwillingness to account for externalities, or in institutions that lead to market failures. While important, and large, these are all problems that can be fixed. The Critical School sees the source of unsustainability to be much larger than the choices we make as individuals and society. The source of issues that should be addressed in macromarketing research deal as much with the way we make collective decisions, as in the decisions, themselves. Let us consider the research implications of these differing perspectives, across several of the dimensions of the Dominant Social Paradigm.
Technology
The Critical School would argue that the fundamental barriers to the problem of sustainability are technological, or at least market reliance on technology as the solution. Marketing systems can solve a technical problem with a technological solution, but they cannot solve the problem of reliance on technology with a technological fix. In part, this is the argument put forth by McDonough and Braungart (2002), who argue that we need to keep mechanical and biological processes separate. The critical school asks how we separate ourselves from the assumption of technology as the solution.
In terms of the technological assumption, the Developmental question becomes, how can markets and marketing systems employ emerging technologies to separate carbon emission from technological progress? This is the central question Senge et al. (2008) address in their work, where they see sustainability as a technical business problem. Can better foresight of technology (physical or philosophic) help us avoid the consequences of market decisions? This is the thinking of firms like Interface Carpet, who have separated the carpet production process from the carbon emissions process (Anderson 1999).
Political liberalism
If one accepts the premise of political liberalism, then the basic barrier to solving the sustainability challenge is the problem of linking consumption with accountability. The Critical School would argue this is more easily said than done. It would point out that this was the intent of the Chicago Climate Exchange, which folded in 2010 (ICE 2013). The voluntary nature of the Exchange suggests that attention should be focused on the kinds of institutions needed to make marketing systems for carbon credits viable (Dhanda and Hartman 2011).
In an effort to achieve lower prices, markets often do not include the true costs of externalities (Mundt 1993). This is because some property rights are over-emphasized while others are under-emphasized. The Developmental School would argue that the objective of markets and their regulation should be to internalize the true costs of externalities, and to make consumers accountable for the real costs of their consumption. This is, at its heart, an issue of the flow of title and property rights (Alderson 1965). Sustainability goals can be achieved through strengthened property rights and accountability through markets and marketing systems; connecting the true cost of energy with consumption will make consumers more diligent in their use of resources.
Economic self-interest
In terms of economic self-interest, the Developmental School would look for ways to understand how sustainability goals can be achieved by using marketing systems that align these goals with the self-interests that operate in markets. For example, Walmart’s decision to stock organic produce gave the category the economy of scale necessary to enter the mainstream, though the Critical School would argue that this decision institutionalized industrial organic food, and with it many of the same environmental problems as non-organic food (Pollan 2006).
Anthropocentrism
The Critical School questions whether sustainable solutions are possible so long as people perceive themselves to have dominion over nature, or that they view nature as strictly property. How do we overcome these assumptions, and how would this affect the structure of markets and marketing systems?
The Developmental School, on the other hand, would ask how marketing and marketing systems can be employed to convey sustainability as a survival imperative. The distinction between the two perspectives is in whether anthropocentric perspectives must be changed, or if they can be harnessed for sustainable objectives.
Competition
In terms of competition, the Developmental School would argue that competition breeds innovation. This does not mean competition should be without boundaries. The role of public policy should be to insure that societal goals are met through the process of competition. This is the premise that underlies cap-and-trade carbon emission reduction systems. A societal goal of carbon reduction is set, defining the number of permits that can be issued to pollute. If firms can innovate new ways to reduce their emissions below what they are allowed to produce, then they can sell their permits to others with less efficient technology. The Critical School would argue that such a system allows less efficient producers to buy their way out of responsibility. Further, competition consumes resources that could be applied to solving problems. The Critical School question is whether the same goals can be achieved through competition. They point to examples like toy sharing libraries (Ozanne and Ozanne 2011) as success stories of cooperation.
Conclusions, Contributions and Future Directions
This article makes three important contributions. First, if offers a set of elemental criteria to help us understand the concept of a megatrend. Megatrends are broader in scope, longer in duration and more impactful in scope than normal trends. They are complex in nature, requiring the skills and perspectives of macromarketers to understand. Similar to macromarketing phenomena, they are extensive and unpredictable in their impact. And also like marketing systems, they are embedded in the contexts of their time. One might argue, then, that the study of macromarketing is the study of megatrends through the lens of the marketing system.
Second, this article articulates two schools of thought in Macromarketing scholarship, the Developmental School and the Critical School. The Developmental School operates from the premise that marketing systems are important parts of the solution to the human condition; the Critical School operates from the premise that they are part of the problem. Each may conclude that sustainability is the megatrend of our time, but for different reasons. The Developmental School will emphasize innovations that push the envelope of the Dominant Social Paradigm, while the Critical School will emphasize the need to consider the Dominant Social Paradigm, itself. These are not mutually exclusive paths to a sustainable future, but they lead us to focus on different questions, methods and priorities.
Finally, this article offers thoughts for sustainability research in macromarketing. Most welcome and useful would be a fresh research-ethos whereby scholars, practitioners and policy makers collaborate to explore interactions among phenomena, institutions and consumers, systemically and temporally – addressing as many stakeholders as possible, now and into the future – while considering technological, political, economic, anthropocentric and competitive forces, all of which potentially enhance sustainability. Such a research ethos requires coordination, multiple methods, time, patience and perseverance. It requires monitoring, measurement/interpretation and communication of and within a marketing system, forever, or at least as long as homo marketus has interest in sustainability.
To provide a glimpse into a practical example – and systemic factors and complexities that affect sustainability – consider the seemingly banal, previously introduced example of sliced bread. From fundamental caloric need and anthropocentric wants (“the staff of life,” “let us break bread”); to grain production and land/water/chemical/labor management issues related thereto; to energy and materials usage during production, slicing, packaging, distribution, storage; to jobs creation/elimination and community building across a value chain; to purchase, consumption and disposition of products and services required for production, distribution and consumption of bread; to production/distribution/consumption of complementary products (e.g., meat) and their impact on sustainability; to profits and taxes and their allocation toward sustainable/unsustainable initiatives; to health costs/benefits associated with the consumption of bread; to grain farmers, lobbyists, politicians and the USDA; to economic/competitive forces, substitutes and pricing structures; to the vicissitudes of weather and pestilence, and the onslaught of climate change; to development of new technologies (e.g., chemicals, tractors, processors) that enhance and/or retard sustainability (depending upon which stakeholder is asked and when s/he is asked); to evolving cultural, technological, economic, competitive and natural forces that affect bread consumption and subsequent changes to all the items listed above and the ecosystem in which we live or will live in the future, we see that the marketing system, in both time and space, is so replete with opportunities for research on consumers, policy makers and markets/marketers/marketing and their reciprocal impact on sustainability that readers surely will not be wanting for research opportunities, even if they choose “only” to study the impact of bread production/consumption on sustainability. 1
In summary, we believe macromarketing scholars are uniquely positioned to explore sustainability as megatrend because they have the tools and mental models to consider it as such. Indeed, while macromarketing is not of a single voice on the issue of sustainability, macromarketing nevertheless inevitably is indispensable to any truly sustainable initiative on sustainability, if sustainability is to be a megatrend. Consider that macromarketing offers a globally systemic approach to the challenge. It addresses multi-factorial complexity in time and space and eschews the one-off “green” product, idea, behavior or “solution,” regardless of the apparent contribution of any single offering. Macromarketing respects history as a learning tool – from Aristotle (1976) to Lloyd (1833) to Hardin (1968) to Fisk (1981) to name just a few important contributors on topics germane to sustainability – and concomitantly appreciates and values transcendent ideas from diverse perspectives. It accepts the inevitability of scarcity and competition for resources, even though some macromarketers may not favor that inevitability. It understands that markets emerged fundamentally to improve societal well-being, while simultaneously understanding that markets and marketing processes work best when they are transparent and well regulated, and sometimes must be criticized to ensure just outcomes and societal gains from them. It understands that life quality will be the ultimate determinant of any systemically global endeavor(s) – marketing or otherwise – if any endeavor (even sliced bread) is to be sustainable, over time. Given that macromarketers have scholarly foci on marketing systems, history, competition and markets, ethics and justice, globalization and the environment, and quality of life, it truly would seem no discipline is better positioned to be the intellectual, policy and practical vanguard for sustainability.
Footnotes
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.