Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Strategic marketing, sustainability, the triple bottom line, and resource-advantage (R-A) theory: Securing the foundations of strategic marketing theory and research

  • Theory/Conceptual
  • Published:
AMS Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Addressing strategic marketing's identity problem, several highly complementary works have clarified the field's theoretical foundations, nature, and scope by (1) specifying its domain, (2) defining its central concept, "marketing strategy," (3) proposing the field's foundational premises, and (4) positing its fundamental explananda. Furthermore, the works have shown how resource-advantage (R-A) theory (5) grounds major theories of marketing strategy, (6) illuminates, informs, extends, and grounds the field's foundational premises, (7) identifies three fundamental strategies ("superior value," "lower cost," and "synchronal"), and (8) explains how the three fundamental strategies promote societal welfare. However, a major unresolved issue concerns the second fundamental explanandum of strategic marketing. Specifically, Varadarajan (AMS Review, 5, 78-90, 2015) expands his second fundamental explanandum from "marketplace and financial performance" to explaining triple bottom line (TBL) performance. That is, strategic marketing theory and research should answer: "What explains differences in [social, environmental, and financial] performance of competing brands/product lines/businesses?" This article provides a background discussion on how "sustainability" and the TBL relate to marketing in general and strategic marketing, in particular. Next, it (1) examines the nature of the TBL, (2) shows how the TBL concept and certain issues regarding its measurement parallel those in the "corporate social responsibility" literature, (3) re-examines the value of the TBL framework, (4) makes clear how R-A theory accommodates the TBL, and (5) shows how R-A theory provides seven potential explanations of differences in firms' TBL performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arrow, K. J. (1972). Gifts and exchanges. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1(4), 343–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T. L., & Bowie, N. E. (1988). Ethical theory and business (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belz, F., & Peattie, K. (2009). Sustainability marketing. West Sussex: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bharadwaj, S. (2015). Developing new marketing strategy theory: Addressing the limitations of a singular focus on firm financial performance. AMS Review, 5(3–4), 98–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohringer, C., & Jochem, P. (2007). Measuring the immeasurable – A survey of sustainability indices. Ecological Economics, 63, 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boli, J., & Thomas, G. M. (1999). Constructing world culture: International nongovernmental organizations since 1875: 13–49. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, R. (1979). Metaphor and theory change: What is “metaphor” a metaphor for? In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridges, C. M., & Wilhelm, W. B. (2008). Going beyond green: The ‘why and how’ of integrating sustainability into the marketing curriculum. Journal of Marketing Education, 30(1), 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management, 32(3), 946–967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34, 39–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chabowki, B., Mena, J., & Gonzalez-Padron, T. (2011). The structure of sustainability research in marketing, 1958-2008: A basis for future research opportunities. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 55–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Closs, D., Speier, C., & Meacham, N. (2011). Sustainability to support end-to-end value chains: The role of supply chain management. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 101–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connelly, B., Ketchen, D., & Slater, S. (2011). Toward a ‘theoretical toolbox’ for sustainability research in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 86–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crittenden, V., Crittenden, W., Ferrell, L., Ferrell, O., & Pinney, C. (2011). Market-oriented sustainability: A conceptual framework and propositions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 71–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, J. J., Smith, J. S., Gleim, M. R., & Ramirez, E. (2011). Green marketing strategies: An examination of stakeholders and the opportunities they present. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 158–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dam, V., Ynte, K., & Apeldoorn, P. A. C. (1996). Sustainable marketing. Journal of Macroeconomics, 16(2), 45–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmas, M. A., & Burbano, V. C. (2011). The drivers of greenwashing. California Management Review, 54(1), 64–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of the 21 st century business. Stony Creek: New Society Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J., & Hailes, J. (1988). The green consumer guide. London: Victor Gollancz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder perspective. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

  • Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times, Sept., 13, 122–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gambetta, D. (1988). Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relationships. New York: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, L. E. (1992). Who prospers? How cultural values shape economic and political success. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henion, K. E., & Kinnear, T. C. (1976). Ecological marketing. Chicago: American Marketing Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, M., & Rust, R. (2011). Sustainability and consumption. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 40–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hult, G. (2011). Market-focused sustainability: Market orientation plus! Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D. (2000). A general theory of competition: Resources, competences, productivity, economic growth. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D. (2010). Marketing theory: Foundations, controversy, strategy, resource-advantage theory. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D. (2011). Sustainable marketing, equity, and economic growth: A resource-advantage, economic freedom approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 7–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D. (2013). The inductive realist model of theory generation: Explaining the development of a theory of marketing ethics. AMS Review, 3(2), 51–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D. (2015). The theoretical foundations of strategic marketing and marketing strategy: Foundational premises, R-A theory, three fundamental strategies, and societal welfare. The Academy of Marketing Science, 5(3–4), 61–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Arnett, D. B. (2003). Resource-advantage theory and embeddedness: Explaining R-A theory’s explanatory success. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 11(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Hansen, J. M. (2007). Understanding ethical diversity in organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 36(2), 143–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Menon, A. (1995). Metaphors and competitive advantage: Evaluating the use of metaphors in theories of competitive strategy. Journal of Business Research, 33(2), 81–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1995). The comparative advantage theory of competition. Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1997). Resource-advantage theory: A snake swallowing its tail or a general theory of competition? Journal of Marketing, 61(4), 74–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Vasquez-Parraga, A. (1993). Organizational consequences, marketing ethics and salesforce supervision. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(1), 78–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. J. (1986). A general theory of marketing ethics. Journal of Macroeconomics, 6(1), 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. J. (2006). The general theory of marketing ethics: A revision and three questions. Journal of Macroeconomics, 26(2), 143–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.

  • Kang, C., Germann, F., & Grewal, R. (2016). Washing away your sings? Corporate social responsibility, corporate social irresponsibility and firm performance. Journal of Marketing, 80(2), 59–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassarjian, H. H. (1971). Incorporating ecology into marketing strategy: The case of air pollution. Journal of Marketing, 35, 61–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, A. (2017). AMA/McGraw Hill/Irwin award recipient’s address, American marketing association winter educators’ conference. February, 18, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • KPMG (2013). The KPMG survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2013: Executive summary. kpmg.Com/sustainability. Accessed 26 July 2016.

  • Levin, M. E. (1991). The reification-realism-positivism controversy in macromarketing: A philosopher’s view. Journal of Macroeconomics, 11(1), 57–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. A. (2002). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from businesses' self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33, 497–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2001). People and profits? The search for a link between a company’s social and financial performance. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, D., & Schouten, J. (2012). Sustainable marketing. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, C., & Day, G. (2016). Organizing for marketing excellence. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 6–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nikolaeva, R., & Bicho, M. (2011). The role of institutional and reputational factors in the voluntary adoption of corporate social responsibility reporting standards. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 136–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, W., & MacDonald, C. (2004). Getting to the bottom of “triple” bottom line. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(2), 243–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24, 403–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peattie, K. (2001). Towards sustainability: The third age of green marketing. The Marketing Review, 2(2), 129–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peloza, J., & Shang, J. (2011). How can corporate social responsibility activities create value for stakeholders? A systematic review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 117–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, M. (2013). Sustainable enterprise: A macromarketing approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, R., & Wood, P.W. (2015). Sustainability: higher education’s new fundamentalism. nas.Org/sustainability. Accessed 26 July 2016.

  • Phelps, E. S. (1975). Altruism, morality, and economic theory. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robins, F. (2006). The challenge of TBL: A responsibility to whom? Business and Society Review, 111(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savitz, A. W., & Weber, K. (2006). The triple bottom line: How today’s best-run companies are achieving economic, social and environmental success—And how you can too. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, S. A., & Flanigan, R. L. (2016). Developing competitive advantage using the triple bottom line: A conceptual framework. The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 31(4), 449–548.

  • Sheth, J., Sethia, N., & Srinivas, S. (2011). Mindful consumption: A customer-centric approach to sustainability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varadarajan, R. (2010). Strategic marketing and marketing strategy: Domain, definition, fundamental issues and foundational premises. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38, 119–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varadarajan, R. (2015). Strategic marketing, marketing strategy and market strategy. AMS Review, 5(3–4), 78–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitell, S. J., & Hunt, S. D. (2015). The general theory of marketing ethics: The consumer ethics and intentions issues. In A. Nill (Ed.), Handbook on ethics and marketing. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 303–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H., Tong, L., Takeuchi, R., & George, G. (2016). From the editors- corporate social responsibility: An overview and new research directions. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2), 534–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1993). Opportunism and its critics. Managerial and Decision Economics, 14, 94–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1994). Transaction cost economics and organization theory. In Smelser, N.J. and Swedberg, R., The Handbook of Economic Sociology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, 691–718.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J. (2010). Measuring corporate social performance: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 50–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Economic Forum. (2003). Global competitiveness report, 2003–2004. Davos: World Economic Forum.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Dale Duhan (Texas Tech University), Kiran Pedada (Texas Tech University), the editor, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on a draft of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rawls College of Business, Department of Marketing, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, 79409-2101, USA

    Shelby D. Hunt

Authors
  1. Shelby D. Hunt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shelby D. Hunt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hunt, S.D. Strategic marketing, sustainability, the triple bottom line, and resource-advantage (R-A) theory: Securing the foundations of strategic marketing theory and research. AMS Rev 7, 52–66 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-017-0090-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-017-0090-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation