Abstract
Background:
The adoption of systems thinking within social marketing is illustrated by the emerging literature relating to systems social marketing and macro-social marketing. Systems social marketing and macro-social marketing signal a shift from singular level behavior change toward a more holistic, multilevel change mode of operandi for complex and wicked problems. In recognition of this broadening perspective, Truong et al. took the first steps to describe the relationship between systems thinking and social marketing through a critical appraisal. However, their analysis stopped short of defining systems social marketing and macro-social marketing, examining how the concepts have been applied, and the impact this has on our change methodologies.
Focus:
This article is related to research and evaluation of the social marketing field.
Research Question:
This study aims to (a) examine the causality looseness surrounding the descriptions of systems social marketing and macro-social marketing, (b) conceptualize systems social marketing and macro-social marketing, and (c) develop a taxonomy for classifying and interpreting the systems-based social marketing–related literature.
Methods:
Following best practice protocols, a systematic review was conducted to identify systems social marketing and macro-social marketing literature and interventions published prior to March 2020. Five databases were searched using a combination of relevant search terms.
Results:
Sixteen thousand and forty-seven title and abstracts were screened, resulting in 45 articles being reviewed, 8 of which were interventions. Analysis of the findings indicated both systems social marketing and macro-social marketing use nonlinear causality and seeks to understand the structural and behavioral dynamics in a system to leverage change. Moreover, the findings suggest that systems social marketing focuses on evolutionary dynamics and a “whole system in the room” approach, pursuing top-down, bottom-up iterative processes with macro-social marketing pursuing institutional dynamics and “inside the system” top-down processes.
Importance to Social Marketing Field:
This article is one of the first efforts to examine the inner anatomy of systems social marketing and macro-social marketing for causality and definitional clarity. In drawing a distinction between the two orientations, social marketers can begin to understand in what contexts and settings these perspectives are most applicable.
Recommendations:
The taxonomy and search strategy can be adopted in other reviews as they offer a rich and diverse basis for further conceptual analysis of systems-based social marketing–related literature.
Limitation:
Community-based prevention marketing, community-based social marketing, and community-led assets-based social marketing articles were excluded from this review. Hence, further research could include these approaches and uncover their features, analogies, and differences versus systems social marketing and macro-social marketing.
Social marketing in a systems setting is trending among academics and practitioners alike (Brychkov & Domegan, 2017; Domegan et al., 2016; Kennedy, 2016; McHugh & Domegan, 2013; Peterson, 2017; Shapiro, 2019; Truong et al., 2019). The emergence and use of the terms “systems social marketing” and “macro-social marketing” is an acknowledgment that the discipline is moving beyond its conventional singular behavior change foundations toward a holistic, systemic change mode of operandi. The terms are also an acknowledgment that the issues tackled by social marketing have fundamentally altered since the emergence of the field. Whether it is the United Nation’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) or World Health Organization’s (WHO) One Health challenges, problems are complex, with significant interdependency and interconnectedness. The systems people are living in, experiencing these problems, are equally difficult with multifaceted structures, spanning macro-meso-micro levels involving a rich diversity of stakeholders from citizens to policy makers in local-to-national-to-global contexts (Lowe & Plimmer, 2019). People themselves are also highly complex, acting and reacting in sometimes unpredictable ways, full of contradictions with altering beliefs and actions. In short, social marketing’s remit for behavior change is no longer about treating down-mid-or up-stream audiences and interventions in silos. It is about coordinated, multilevel, systemic change and the transformations of our communities, organizations, societies, and the world we live in.
This shift to a holistic orientation is significantly enriched by the integration of systems science with social marketing. Systems science emphasizes the linkages, interactions, and relationships among the elements and members of the system over time. It combines the strengths of multiple methodologies, for example, qualitative modeling using content, sentiment, and narrative analysis and structural equation modeling (Byrne & Gallagher, 2014). It argues that long-term strategic thinking is required and coordinated approaches to change are essential as behavior change is inextricably linked to social and systemic transformations, as we are all part of mutually dependent communities.
Systems social marketing and macro-social marketing are the two concepts used interchangeably to describe the explosion of system-based approaches in social marketing. For instance, systems social marketing and macro-social marketing have been used to refer to community-based prevention marketing (CBPM), community-based social marketing (CBSM), community-led assets-based social marketing, adapted behavioral ecological model (BEM) or systems social marketing (Domegan et al., 2016) and macro-social marketing (Kennedy, 2016) itself. Extensive conceptualization efforts were undertaken in relation to CBPM (Bryant et al., 2014), CBSM (Biroscak et al., 2014), BEM (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), and to a lesser extent, community-led assets-based social marketing (Stead et al., 2013). Truong et al. (2019) take the first step in understanding the relationship between systems thinking and social marketing by providing us with a critical appraisal. Their analysis of early publications (2000–2018) of system-based approaches in social marketing results in the emergence of key features of this budding perspective. However, it stops short of defining systems social marketing and macro-social marketing, examining how the concepts have been applied, and the impact this has on our change methodologies. Truong et al. (2019) conclude with a call for more dialogue and debate “within the social marketing field and beyond…about the role of systems social marketing in addressing complex social issues and driving social change” (Truong et al., 2019, p. 191).
The only way to answer Truong et al.’s call to increase our explanatory power of social and systemic change is to augment the theoretical literature with empirical evidence and structure the causality concepts at work. This time, a rigorous systematic review approach was undertaken to identify all the available literature, specifically addressing the following four contributions. First, this systematic review examines the causality looseness surrounding the descriptions of systems social marketing and macro-social marketing. By identifying the contexts surrounding their applications, we can begin to understand in what contexts and settings these perspectives are most applicable. Secondly, we further the conceptualization of systems social marketing and macro-social marketing, by providing working definitions and differentiating their features, including the analogies and differences between them. These distinctions are made to reduce the definitional ambiguity between macro-social marketing and systems social marketing. Thirdly, this review develops a taxonomy for classifying and interpreting the systems-based social marketing–related literature focusing on interventions as well as conceptual materials. Such a deductive classification schema is fundamental “to organizing phenomena into classes or groups that are amenable to systemic investigation and theory development” (Hunt, 1983, p. 348). Finally, the search strategy developed throughout this process can be adopted in other reviews in this area. It can be applied in the future to ensure the taxonomy and associated theory issues continue to be developed in social marketing.
Method
Search Methods for Identification of Studies
Following the best practice Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol (Moher et al., 2010) and the systematic literature review procedures outlined in Carins and Rundle-Thiele (2014), a search was conducted to identify systems social marketing and macro-social marketing literature and interventions published prior to March 2020. Five databases were searched (ProQuest, Web of Science, EBSCO, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO) using a combination of search terms. The search terms included the following: “System*,” “systemic*,” “system* science,” “system* thinking,” “system* theory,” “General System* Theory,” “Complex System*,” “systemic change,” “system* change,” “social marketing,” “Behavio* Change,” “Public Health,” “Environment*,” “Sustainability,” “intervention*,” “Complex Intervention*,” “multifaceted intervention*,” “system intervention,” “Community based intervention*,” “campaign*,” “program*,” “Study,” “Studies.”.
A two-phased search approach was undertaken in each database. The first search strategy included the following search terms: “System*,” “systemic*,” “system* science,” “system* thinking,” “system* theory,” “General System* Theory,” “Complex System*,” “systemic change,” “system* change,” “social marketing,” “Behavio* Change,” “Public Health,” “Environment*,” “Sustainability.” The second search included the additional search terms: “intervention*,” “Complex Intervention*,” “multifaceted intervention*,” “system intervention,” “Community based intervention*,” “campaign*,” “program*,” “Study,” “Studies.” This approach ensured that all relevant records retrieved relating to systems social marketing and macro-social marketing literature and associated interventions. The use of the asterisk (*) symbol allowed for variable endings of the search terms to be uncovered including their singular and plural forms in addition to British and American spelling variations (Shawky et al., 2019). Table 1 provides a summary of the databases searched.
Summary of Search Term Results.
Assessment of Eligibility
Records were included if they were a journal article, were published in English, were deemed to adopt a social marketing approach, that is, their focus was on changing behaviors according to Andreasen’s benchmark criteria and/or the International Social Marketing Association (iSMA) consensus social marketing definition, and used systems-based terminology. Records were excluded where the social marketing domain and/or systems element was poorly pronounced. For example, if an article discussed systems-based terminology, but its application to social marketing was not evident.
Data Extraction
Figure 1 summarizes the PRISMA search process. The identified 16,047 records were downloaded and collated using Endnote Version X7.8. Duplicates were removed resulting in 5,962 unique records. Three researchers analyzed the remaining records using a two-step screening process. The data management software, Covidence, was used to assist in the screening process. The first stage, “title and abstract screening,” assessed all titles and abstracts (n = 5,962) to identify if the records met the inclusion criteria. During the second stage, “full-text screening,” each reviewer analyzed the content of the articles and assessed its relevance based on the exclusion criteria highlighted above.
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) diagram of literature search process.
Twenty full-texts contained systems social marketing and macro-social marketing literature, and interventions were analyzed and classified. A backward and forward search was undertaken until the researchers had reached data saturation to ensure this review captured all relevant data. The backward and forward search included searching the reference list of the 20 original articles, searching the authors’ names, websites, intervention name, “Publish or Perish,” and Google Scholar to uncover any additional relevant records. This resulted in an additional 25 records for review.
All the final studies were synthesized qualitatively using content analysis by three independent reviewers. Each article was analyzed, and the information was extracted verbatim and applied against the deductive classification taxonomy (see Tables 2–4). The data extracted included author name, year, macro-social marketing and/or systems social marketing definition, theory used, approach adopted (i.e., multilevel, systems wide), stakeholders involved (e.g., government, macro stakeholders, whole system stakeholders), and methodology used. In the case of the interventions, these articles were analyzed using a deductive taxonomy generated from Andreasen’s (2002) six social marketing benchmark criteria and iSMA, Australian Association of Social Marketing (AASM), and the European Social Marketing Association (ESMA) core principle and set of concepts. This taxonomy established the extent to which social marketing was truly applied in the intervention papers.
Use of benchmark criteria and social marketing concepts in systems social marketing and macro-social marketing interventions.
Note. MSM = macro-social marketing; SSM = Systems social marketing.
a Positive behavioral outcome reported.
b The number of marketing mix elements reported in the intervention.
Macro-Social Marketing Taxonomy.
Note. MSM = macro-social marketing.
SSM Taxonomy.
Note. SSM = systems social marketing.
Findings
Forty-five full-text papers relating to systems social marketing and macro-social marketing were found. These were analyzed to establish their working definitions, features, analogies, and differences. The papers relating to macro-social marketing and systems social marketing interventions were further analyzed to establish the application of the benchmark criteria and social marketing concepts. The taxonomy findings are outlined in Table 2, and the following section describes the macro-social marketing and systems social marketing interventions and their approaches.
Systems Social Marketing and Macro-Social Marketing Interventions
Of the 45 qualified articles, only 8 interventions (N = 8) were identified which explicitly applied systems social marketing (n = 3; Borden et al., 2018; Ventuirini, 2016; Zurcher, Doctor, & Imig, 2018) or macro-social marketing (n = 5; Kennedy & Parsons, 2012; Truong, 2017). This is not so surprising, given the context of systems-based approaches in social marketing. Perhaps this finding could be attributed to systems studies adopting social marketing concepts in practice but not self-identifying as social marketing. Instead, the multidisciplinary nature of these studies self-identify as systems thinking subsuming social marketing and other subdisciplines.
Importantly from a social marketing perspective, the analysis identified six interventions (n = 4 macro-social marketing; n = 2 systems social marketing) which provided evidence of addressing eight of the benchmark criteria with a positive behavior outcome reported in all. This highlights how systems social marketing and macro-social marketing converge in their understanding of the importance of adopting the benchmark criteria for positive behavior change. Where they differ is the scale and causality levels at which the intervention is implemented, the approach they take, and the stakeholders involved. The following sections highlight these differing perspectives.
Macro-Social Marketing Interventions
Kennedy and Parsons (2012) described a successful antismoking macro-social marketing intervention, which was rolled out in Canada in 1985. This intervention was successful in influencing the institutional norms of the system, and significant decreases in smoking were recorded. This intervention centered on macro stakeholders shaping the social context in which the behavior takes place. Specifically, this intervention sought to decrease the efficiency of the traditional marketing mix. Taxes and import duties on tobacco products were introduced, prices were controlled, and advertising and promotion of tobacco products were regulated. Restrictions were introduced on smoking in certain areas such as workplace and public transport. In addition to altering the societal context, this intervention focused on the micro and meso levels simultaneously. A youth action committee was established, tools were provided to educate and empower, and advertising was used to illustrate the hazards of smoking. The success of this macro-social marketing intervention resulted in similar approaches being implemented in multiple other counties.
Truong (2017) described four individual macro-social marketing initiatives implemented in Vietnam. These initiatives aimed to enact laws and regulations surrounding helmet use, reduce smoking throughout Vietnam, reduce drink driving, and increase the rate of consumers of fortified food (Truong, 2017). Similar to Kennedy and Parsons (2012), these initiatives were implemented with the government focusing on shaping the social context. The alcohol-free journeys initiative imposed taxes and duties on alcohol process. Fines were introduced for individuals caught driving while under the influence of alcohol, and restrictions were implemented on areas where people could consume alcohol (Truong, 2017). Restrictions were implemented on the promotion and sponsorship of alcohol products, and laws were introduced such as the Law on Road Traffic and National Policy on Alcohol Prevention (Truong, 2017). In addition to shaping the macro level, the four initiatives outlined by Truong (2017) included stakeholder engagement across levels. These stakeholders were engaged to design and implement the programs, for example, The National Traffic Safety Committee was engaged to develop and implement programs for National Helmet use (Truong, 2017). Training programs and educational campaigns were also produced with multiple messages and channels used to disseminate the campaign materials. All four macro-social marketing initiatives indicated positive changes in behavior once measures were taken to restructure the system in order to mitigate the undesirable consequences of commercial marketing practices.
Systems Social Marketing Interventions
Borden et al. (2018) describe a social marketing campaign targeted at organic food composting behavior in United States universities. Initially, this campaign targeted downstream efforts, but upon evaluation of the campaign’s success in achieving behavior change, it was realized that such an approach was insufficient in reaching the desired goals. Campaign success was demonstrated only after transitioning to a more system-based approach. Zurcher, Jensen, and Mansfield (2018) described the Food & Fitness (F&F) initiative, which was aimed at supporting healthy eating and active living. It required large-scale systems change at many levels. F&F looked at transforming the system and applying systems thinking at every level. It incorporated five systems thinking frameworks and mapped the system with community members. F&F acknowledged the importance of stakeholder’s networks and collaborative action to achieve sustainable change. This initiative listened to, learned from, and worked with community members to empower these to develop solutions that were mutually beneficial.
Healthy Together Victoria is a truly system-based initiative in Victoria, Australia (Ventuirini, 2016). Healthy Together Victoria aimed to help Victorians to stay healthy and well for as long as possible. Taking a “whole systems in the room” approach, this initiative incorporated multiple stakeholders from different sectors and at different levels in the system to deliver multifaceted health promotion policy and practice at multiple levels. This included childcare services, schools, workplaces, communities, government, nongovernment, and statutory bodies. Prevention was encouraged by intervening at different points simultaneously to produce a multiplier effect. Strategic leverage points were also identified for maximum impact (Strugnell et al., 2016; Ventuirini, 2016). Collaborative action was paramount to this initiative, and the multiple stakeholders were continually engaged with, feedback gathered so that knowledge could be cocreated and interventions coproduced. In adopting a full-scale, multilevel intervention, Healthy Victoria Together were able to achieve greater impact, reach, and sustainable social change.
Systems Social Marketing and Macro-Social Marketing Definitions, Features, Analogies, and Differences
While systems social marketing is a term used interchangeable with macro-social marketing, this systematic review uncovered differences in their working definitions (see Tables 2–4). For example, Duffy et al.’s (2017) paper on macro-social marketing provided Layton’s (2007, p. 230) definition for marketing systems. Truong (2017, p. 410) defines macro-social marketing as “the use of social marketing by governments and other upstream actors within a systemic approach to engender social change.” Kemper and Ballantine (2017, 2020), Kennedy (2016, 2017), Kennedy and Parson (2012), Hamby et al. (2017), and Huff, Barnhart, McAlexander, and McAlexander (2017) include “system-wide change,” “change at the societal level,” “holistic,” and “altering institutional norms” within their definitions of macro-social marketing.
In contrast, McHugh et al. (2018, p. 165) define systems social marketing as “multiplicity of people and stakeholder groups interacting to create patterns of behaviors, choices, and values over time in a dynamic macro–micro context.” Westberg et al. (2017) suggest systems social marketing as focusing on “top down, bottom up connections and relational approaches among all participants within the defined micro, meso and macro system” (Domegan et al., 2016, p. 1127). A similar perspective is taken by Domegan et al. (2016, p. 1126) who suggest systems thinking social marketing culminates in the “whole-systems-in-the-room” phenomena and getting “all eyes on the problem.” They expand this and suggest it also includes shared participation, value, and exchange among an interconnected network of individuals and groups.
The analysis of the macro-social marketing and systems social marketing literature using the taxonomy highlights where these two approaches converge and separate. Both systems social marketing and macro-social marketing aim to achieve system-wide change. Both adopt a nonlinear understanding of causality, implicitly or explicitly, and acknowledge the complexity underlying wicked problems. They differ in the approach adopted to achieve this goal. Macro-social marketing advocates that to engender change the societal context should be shaped by changing institutional norms (Kennedy & Parsons, 2012; Kemper & Ballantine, 2020). They aim to decrease the efficiency of the traditional marketing mix by using approaches such as demarketing (Kemper & Ballantine, 2017; Koch & Orazi, 2017; Little et al., 2019). The focus is on organizational complexity to change in the system. Macro-social marketers implement multilevel institutional interventions where they believe a change in the institutional norms of the systems results in behavior change in the micro level of the system (Hamby et al., 2017; Kennedy et al., 2017). This is a top-down, “inside the system” and dynamic organizational causal explanation capturing the human and structural complicatedness of institutions with separate agendas (Andersson & Törnberg, 2018).
In comparison, systems social marketing suggests a top-down and bottom-up causal explanation that concentrates on the ebb and flow of the structural and behavioral dynamics in the system to achieve system-wide change. Adopting this “whole systems in the room” approach, systems social marketing interventions are embedded in the social and structural matrix, acknowledging complicatedness and complexity (Andersson & Törnberg, 2018). The focus is on incorporating a diverse range of stakeholders located across the different levels of society to deliver multilevel interventions.
Furthermore, systems social marketing and macro-social marketing differ in terms of stakeholder involvement. Macro-social marketing considers governments and other macro level stakeholders (Truong, 2017) as responsible for initiating change and organizing behaviors. It considers these stakeholders as best placed to alter the societal context that is perpetuating the complex problems. Systems social marketing acknowledges that stakeholders within the system are interrelated, interactive, embedded, and dynamic (Brennan et al., 2016). As a result, meso and/or micro stakeholders, as well as macro stakeholders, can initiate systems change. Importantly, regardless of where change initiates from, systems social marketing theory consists of iterative macro-meso-micro-macro processes and not just macro events. This advocates for ongoing collaboration and cooperation among all stakeholders so that mutually beneficial value-based exchanges and solutions emerge.
Differences in the use of the terms “complex problems” and “wicked problems” were also evident. All macro-social marketing papers used the term “wicked problems” and described them as “multi-level of interconnecting factors,” “interlinked causal pathways,” “involve multi levels and multi stakeholders” and “are difficult to define, address and manage” (Hamby et al., 2017; Huff et al., 2017; Kock & Orazi, 2017). Duffy et al (2017, p. 332) provided some clarification and defined wicked problems as “complex social issues that involve networks of actors and entities that reflect commonly held beliefs or norms that result in ineffective, inefficient, unequitable or unfair social marketing systems. A wicked problem is likely to be dynamic, resilient against intervention, influenced by the associated strategic action field, driven by social mechanisms and will have consequences, singularly or simultaneously at the micro, meso or macro level of the system.”
Differences in methodologies used in systems social marketing and macro-social marketing were also evident. Kennedy (2017) proposes using a range of methodologies such as soft-system methodologies and total-systems interventions methodology. However, the application of these methodologies was not apparent in the papers analyzed. Rather, a framework is provided, based on Camillus’s (2008) work, for identifying actors, systems structure, and intervention points (Kennedy et al., 2017). A four-step methodology for approaching macro-social marketing was also presented by Kennedy (2017). Among systems social marketing, participatory research methodologies are being utilized in order to fully understand the system, its dynamics, and the relational components. For example, Domegan et al. (2017) used nonlinear causal modeling techniques such as fuzzy cognitive mapping, interactive management, and system dynamics modeling to map the social problem and uncover barriers to change. Zurcher, Jensen, and Mansfield (2018) used causal loop diagramming to gain a clear understanding of the causal relationships within the system, and how to leverage these.
Regarding theoretical integration, clearly systems social marketing and macro-social marketing integrate social marketing and systems thinking. Macro-social marketing also integrates institutional theory (Duffy et al., 2017; Kennedy, 2016) and other theoretical approaches such as social engineering (Kennedy & Parsons, 2012), a multilevel perspective on socio-technical transitions (Kemper & Ballantine, 2017; Little et al., 2019) and socio-ecological models (Kemper & Ballantine, 2020). The integration of these theoretical approaches signals the importance of institutions for macro-social marketing. For example, Kennedy (2016) illustrates the importance of institutional theory in providing macro-social marketers with a basis to develop an understanding of the system and to cultivate system-wide normative frameworks.
Our taxonomy also found differences in the interpretation of the role of certain theories. Specifically, both macro-social marketing and systems social marketing incorporate Layton’s award winning, Mechanism, Action, Structure (MAS) framework theory. They differ in their understanding of the role of social mechanisms and strategic action fields. Within systems social marketing, Domegan et al. (2016, p. 1127) contend that social mechanisms refer to a “relationship-based explanation of a system.” In comparison, Kennedy (2016, p. 357) suggests that mechanisms are tightly entwined with action fields and “an effect occurs in social mechanisms which produces strategic action fields.” Duffy et al. (2017) agree with Kennedy (2016) that social mechanisms and action fields are related; however, they suggest that mechanisms “need to be clearly articulated first” (p. 331).
The taxonomy demonstrates a common variable in macro-social marketing and systems social marketing in their desire to achieve system-wide change through a multilevel remit. Although the theories and methodologies used above to endow this systems perspective differ substantially, they both favor dynamic causality. This perspective acknowledges that change is dependent on structural and behavioral interactions. It captures the interdependencies across and between macro, meso, and micro levels and stakeholders where cause and effect are subtle and vary over time. It seeks to understand and examine the structures, functions, processes, and environments in which individuals engage. It aims to provide a rich understanding of the dynamics at work within the system.
Discussion
Referring to systems social marketing and macro-social marketing, we acknowledge their close proximity; both emerge due to similar concerns, that is, complex and wicked problems, and high degrees of complicatedness. Both rely on closely related theoretical sources, that is, systems science, macromarketing. Both embrace structural and behavioral dynamics. Despite this, our findings from the review suggest these approaches are not the same, and there are important distinctions between the two.
We find macro-social marketing favors institutional dynamics based on top-down causal processes surrounding a specific issue, for example, flu vaccinations are determined by health, hospital policies, regulations, and professional and organizational norms. This approach nests systems in a hierarchical manner and assumes behavior changes cascade down the system. Systems social marketing leans toward evolutionary dynamics based on top-down, bottom-up causal processes, that is, cause of the problem and its effect are subtle (Senge, 1994). Change is seen as an iterative blend of multilevel self-organized actions and reactions in the system. For example, in relation to flu vaccinations, systems social marketing identifies the dominant dynamics such as “fit and health beliefs” and “prior experiences” that explain why some networks seek flu vaccinations and others consciously avoid the flu vaccination (Harkin, 2018).
Based on this finding, we expand previous macro-social marketing definitions and define macro-social marketing as “an approach, which integrates social marketing, institutional theory, systems thinking and other theoretical contributions to seek system-wide change through altering the problem-perpetuating institutional norms of all stakeholders in the system.” Altering institutional norms and social institutions, originating from cultural and social (marketing) systems and interacting with strategic actions fields and social mechanisms, is viewed as a central task of macro-social marketing and social change (Kennedy, 2016). Our definition is primarily a culmination of various macromarketing systemic theories, including Dixon’s (1984) work on marketing systems and Layton’s (2015) MAS framework of theory, especially in recognizing the role of systems, social institutions, social mechanisms, and strategic action fields (Kennedy, 2016).
Referring to systems social marketing, we define this as an approach, which integrates social marketing, MAS theory, and generic system methodologies to seek system-wide change through addressing the evolutionary dynamics of all elements of a social marketing system. The concept of a social marketing system used in our definition corresponds to the award winning and seminal work of Layton’s MAS-based conceptualization of a marketing system, adapted for the domain of social marketing. A social marketing system can be defined via the following attributes: A social marketing system is a proposed or ongoing, specially designed system-wide intervention or offer, embedded in the social matrix. Its prime objective is to co-create continued value for system participants (both target networks, society and social marketers) via direct and indirect voluntary exchanges and the evolution of behaviors, beliefs, choices, and social practices. Its participants represent heterogeneous networks (operating as strategic action fields) of individuals and stakeholder groups, often with contradictory values, needs, and wants who jointly participate in co-creation/destruction of value. It is based on the recognition of inherent system’s causal dynamics of social mechanisms, interlinked stakeholders, and other structural elements, central to the design of a multifaceted multilevel intervention. The target networks, social marketers, and society are recipients of value co-generated in response to some problem.
In systems social marketing, generic system methodologies imply the application of what Pagani and Otto (2013) define as quantitative system dynamics modeling (Sterman, 2000) and qualitative systems thinking (Senge, 1994), including participatory techniques like group model building (Bérard, 2010) and interactive management (Warfield, 2006). Likewise, the use of systems social marketing means the employment of two tenets (i) benchmark social marketing principles and (ii) very specific methodologies like protocols for stakeholder participation and societal stakeholder engagement (McHugh et al., 2018).
Systems social marketing’s focus on the dynamics of all elements of a social marketing system along the issue-related causality chains and its use of specific system science methodologies (system dynamics and group model building), coupled with distinct social marketing approaches.
We consider that this dynamics and emergence combination opens up unique possibilities for the categorization and quantification of issue-related feedback relationships in a system via system dynamics (Sterman, 2018). By no means, do these possibilities for quantification overshadow the use of qualitative methods. On the contrary, systems social marketing favors a mixed method design, when a multidimensional continuum of various methodologies is used for addressing research questions. Social marketing interventions often encounter “more difficulty obtaining valid, reliable measures of salient variables” (Goldberg, 1995, p. 348).
Another intricacy for social marketing also lies in the fact that it is often dominated by qualitative variables such as value, attitude, motivation, complex generalized intangible exchange, and so on (Wood, 2008). However, while the capacity of qualitative variables to affect a system is well documented by systems science, this type of variable is traditionally neglected (Forrester, 1961; Sterman, 2018). What systems social marketing can offer is using system science tools for qualitative data elicitation and their quantified measurements (Sterman, 2018). For instance, interactive management is well known for its capacity to quantify system factors and set up models on the basis of this quantification (Hogan et al., 2014). Likewise, systems dynamics can construct a detailed narrative of the problem using a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods, generate hypotheses about the mechanisms and feedback interactions that caused this problem, and finally develop a simulation model to test these hypotheses and explore policies (Sterman et al., 1997). Analogously, systems social marketing may help to seek indicators for measuring different elements of social marketing systems, like, for instance, collaborative system indicators for social marketing, which assess important parameters of system operation with respect to knowledge, networks, and relationship building (McHugh & Domegan, 2013). We fully share the viewpoint that many issues originate from complex social, economic, political, environmental and other causes, so a range of methods, both qualitative and quantitative, is needed to cope with them and “researchers are most effective when they are eclectic in their choice of methods” (Baum, 1995, p. 459).
Systems social marketing, more than macro-social marketing, is a philosophical view of constructivism that “is undoubtedly the predominant view in contemporary systems science” (Klir, 1991, p. 13) as according to constructivism, “systems do not exist in the real world independent of the human mind” (Klir, 1991, p. 12). Constructivism is especially appropriate for social marketing interventions and systems change as well. Understanding the subjective reality of individuals, communities, stakeholders, and organizations is closely related to their systems and system behavior, which are also socially constructed. As such, the congruity of systems thinking to social marketing has a deep ontological sense, and the logical and natural step is their integration. To this extent, the reliance on systems thinking by systems social marketing and macro-social marketing does not only derive from the complexity of the world or issue intricacy but has an intrinsic philosophical sense of how we view the reality and the place of social marketing interventions in it. Systems social marketing does not need to be a theory when it relies on systems science, which can be viewed as an “orientation” itself. As Klir (1991, p. 7) states “systems science knowledge and methodology are directly applicable in virtually all disciplines of classical science,” while “the cross-disciplinary orientation of systems science has a unifying influence,” thus combating increasing fragmentation of thought “into countless narrow specializations, by offering unifying principles” such as multifinality, equifinality, and multidimensiality.
We consider systems social marketing a valid route for expanding the social marketing armamentarium owing to the wide range of system dynamics and group modeling building techniques it can accommodate (Sterman, 2018). Flood and Carson (1993) stressed the connections between systems science and real-world application and problem management, which link systems science directly with social marketing. Therefore, multi-method and orientation character of systems social marketing directly follows from its deep and profound association with systems science, both on methodological and theoretical levels.
Limitations and Further Research
This systematic literature review has a number of limitations that are best considered when interpreting the findings. Truong et al. (2019) included CBSM articles in their review of systems social marketing and argued that CBSM view the community as a system. We argue that CBSM, CBPM, and community-led assets-based social marketing operate at the level of communities and use a distinct meso methodology. In addition, quite extensive conceptualization efforts have been undertaken in CBPM (Bryant et al., 2014), CBSM (Biroscak et al., 2014), BEM (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Brennan et al., 2016), and community-led assets-based social marketing (Stead et al., 2013). Therefore, CBSM, CBPM, and community-led assets based social marketing articles were not included in this review. This presents an opportunity for further research to include these approaches and uncover their features, analogies, and differences versus systems social marketing and macro-social marketing.
Secondly, only published, peer-reviewed journals were included in this systematic review. However, a formal quality review was not carried out on the included journals. Future systematic reviews could address this limitation and assess the quality of each included paper using quality criteria. In addition, gray literature including books, dissertations and thesis, conference proceedings, and government reports were not included. For example, Eagle et al. (2016) present an illuminating report not covered in this systematic review. They discuss systems social marketing for water quality in relation to the Great Barrier Reef, covering valuable and insightful topics such as communities and communication, knowledge brokerage, and exchange and collaborative co-management from a holistic stance. Future systematic literature reviews on systems social marketing and macro-social marketing should include gray literature and extend our understanding beyond peer-reviewed publications.
Thirdly, all articles reviewed in this study were published in English. Further systematic reviews on systems social marketing and macro-social marketing literature and interventions should include publications in languages other than English.
Fourthly, to develop a taxonomy to analyze the systems social marketing and macro-social marketing interventions, this study incorporated Andreasen’s (2002) benchmark criteria and the iSMA, ESMA, and AASM (2013) core set of concepts to analyze the final studies. There is an anomaly present in this analysis. One could argue that Andreasen’s (2002) benchmark criteria and the iSMA, ESMA, and AASM (2013) for all intended purposes assume linear causality and not the nonlinear causality associated with systems social marketing and macro-social marketing. Systems social marketing and macro-social marketing suggest, in time, both Andreasen’s (2002) benchmark criteria and the iSMA, ESMA, and AASM (2013) will need to be reviewed and revitalized to account for dynamical flows, emergence and complexity of the problems confronting social marketing. It is important to note when carrying out the analysis, it was challenging to determine whether the principles relating to critical thinking, reflexivity, and ethical social marketing considerations were evident in the studies. Given this difficulty, these principles were not included in the analysis. Furthermore, there is limited evidence of systematic literature reviews in social marketing that have incorporated these principles with Andreasen’s benchmark criteria. While all efforts were made to uncover all relevant sources of information for the final 45 studies, the analysis provided in this article is restricted by the information provided in the articles identified in the search process.
Finally, the papers reviewed are early adopters of social marketing systems thinking. They present “some” macro-social marketing or systems social marketing. The majority of reviewed papers theorize about large-scale change in the face of wicked problems or complex challenges and identify potential solutions. A minority report on consultations, draw systems maps, and design multilevel interventions and processes. None report on implementing or evaluating sustained multilevel interventions and systems science over a long period.
Conclusions
This article is one of the first efforts to examine the inner anatomy of systems social marketing and macro-social marketing for causality and definitional clarity. The development of a deductive classification taxonomy illustrates the features of systems social marketing and macro-social marketing, their analogies and differences to increase our explanatory power of social change and systemic transformation. It allows a distinction to be drawn between the two orientations. This distinction lies in their view of the system dynamics and whether it is a “whole system” approach as with systems social marketing with its evolutionary, top-down bottom-up causality or an “inside the system” view as with macro-social marketing and its institutional, top-down causality.
Both are equally valid. Importantly, systems social marketing and macro-social marketing, individually and collectively, move social marketing theory and practice beyond the linear, restricted complexity character of traditional behavior change interventions to a complexity of the world we live in. An embedded supervening and constantly evolving system structure with multilevel and multiple networks of stakeholders is undoubtedly the critical contribution systems social marketing and macro-social marketing offer social marketers.
Furthermore, the rigorous search strategy offers a rich and diverse basis for further conceptual analysis of these systemic approaches in social marketing. While this article also acknowledges the barriers and difficulties associated with the application of systems social marketing and macro-social marketing, we argue that these approaches are central to social marketing if the field is to drive social change and systemic transformation in the face of the UN SDGs and WHO’s One Health challenge.
Footnotes
Authors' Note
Mihir Anand is also affiliated with safefood, Abbey Court, Dublin, Ireland.
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.
