Environmentally friendly but strategically useful? A systematic review of marketing’s consideration of green initiatives

Q1 Business, Management and Accounting
Dan R. Bradbury, J. Joseph Cronin
{"title":"Environmentally friendly but strategically useful? A systematic review of marketing’s consideration of green initiatives","authors":"Dan R. Bradbury,&nbsp;J. Joseph Cronin","doi":"10.1007/s13162-025-00312-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Whether called environmental, social, and governance (ESG), sustainable, or green, efforts to gain a market advantage by providing products that do not compromise people or the planet (‘green initiatives’) are notably increasing. While marketing scholarship has extensively examined consumers’ psychological reactions to such initiatives, primarily focusing on consumer well-being, a critical gap persists. Current research offers insufficient insight into how these efforts concretely benefit firms, aid policymakers, and enhance provider and societal well-being through tangible user responses like purchase behaviors, thereby limiting advancements in both marketing theory and practice. This systematic review (62 articles, 1997–2024) addresses the aforementioned gap by not just examining the effects of firms’ green initiatives on user psychological responses, but also the potential implications for provider and society well-being. Our findings highlight significant shortcomings in the current literature: (1) a commonly accepted definition of “green” marketing strategies is missing, (2) current measures of green perceptions appear to be unidimensional, (3) the behavioral outcomes of green initiatives are understudied, and (4) the literature offers limited insight as to how consumers respond to different types of green initiatives. In response to these shortcomings, a consensus definition of green initiatives is offered, factors that drive consumers’ assessments of green strategic initiatives are identified, a model depicting the antecedents of and outcomes from green initiatives is offered to suggest how such efforts have utility for providers, users, and society, and a research agenda is suggested.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7786,"journal":{"name":"AMS Review","volume":"15 1-2","pages":"261 - 288"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AMS Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13162-025-00312-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Business, Management and Accounting","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Whether called environmental, social, and governance (ESG), sustainable, or green, efforts to gain a market advantage by providing products that do not compromise people or the planet (‘green initiatives’) are notably increasing. While marketing scholarship has extensively examined consumers’ psychological reactions to such initiatives, primarily focusing on consumer well-being, a critical gap persists. Current research offers insufficient insight into how these efforts concretely benefit firms, aid policymakers, and enhance provider and societal well-being through tangible user responses like purchase behaviors, thereby limiting advancements in both marketing theory and practice. This systematic review (62 articles, 1997–2024) addresses the aforementioned gap by not just examining the effects of firms’ green initiatives on user psychological responses, but also the potential implications for provider and society well-being. Our findings highlight significant shortcomings in the current literature: (1) a commonly accepted definition of “green” marketing strategies is missing, (2) current measures of green perceptions appear to be unidimensional, (3) the behavioral outcomes of green initiatives are understudied, and (4) the literature offers limited insight as to how consumers respond to different types of green initiatives. In response to these shortcomings, a consensus definition of green initiatives is offered, factors that drive consumers’ assessments of green strategic initiatives are identified, a model depicting the antecedents of and outcomes from green initiatives is offered to suggest how such efforts have utility for providers, users, and society, and a research agenda is suggested.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

既环保又有战略意义?系统回顾市场营销对绿色倡议的考虑
无论是被称为环境、社会和治理(ESG)、可持续还是绿色,通过提供不损害人类或地球的产品(“绿色倡议”)来获得市场优势的努力都在显著增加。虽然市场营销学者广泛研究了消费者对此类举措的心理反应,主要关注消费者的福祉,但一个关键的差距仍然存在。目前的研究对这些努力如何具体地使企业受益、帮助政策制定者以及如何通过有形的用户反应(如购买行为)提高供应商和社会福祉缺乏深入的了解,从而限制了营销理论和实践的进步。本系统综述(62篇文章,1997-2024)解决了上述差距,不仅考察了企业绿色举措对用户心理反应的影响,还考察了对供应商和社会福祉的潜在影响。我们的研究结果突出了当前文献中的重大缺陷:(1)缺乏普遍接受的“绿色”营销策略定义;(2)当前的绿色感知措施似乎是单维的;(3)绿色倡议的行为结果研究不足;(4)文献对消费者如何回应不同类型的绿色倡议提供的见解有限。针对这些不足,本文提出了绿色倡议的共识定义,确定了驱动消费者评估绿色战略倡议的因素,提出了一个描述绿色倡议的前提和结果的模型,以表明这些努力如何对供应商、用户和社会具有效用,并提出了研究议程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
AMS Review
AMS Review Business, Management and Accounting-Marketing
CiteScore
14.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The AMS Review is positioned to be the premier journal in marketing that focuses exclusively on conceptual contributions across all sub-disciplines of marketing. It publishes articles that advance the development of market and marketing theory.The AMS Review is receptive to different philosophical perspectives and levels of analysis that range from micro to macro. Especially welcome are manuscripts that integrate research and theory from non-marketing disciplines such as management, sociology, economics, psychology, geography, anthropology, or other social sciences. Examples of suitable manuscripts include those incorporating conceptual and organizing frameworks or models, those extending, comparing, or critically evaluating existing theories, and those suggesting new or innovative theories. Comprehensive and integrative syntheses of research literatures (including quantitative and qualitative meta-analyses) are encouraged, as are paradigm-shifting manuscripts.Manuscripts that focus on purely descriptive literature reviews, proselytize research methods or techniques, or report empirical research findings will not be considered for publication.  The AMS Review does not publish manuscripts focusing on practitioner advice or marketing education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信