Theories of sustainability: Re-imagining a marketing-indigenous understanding of sustainability

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.

Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to explore the benefits of integrating the theory of constraints (TOC), resources-based theory (RBT), resource advantage theory (RAT), with a structured project-based methodology e.g., Project Management Body of Knowledge. This paper describes each theory and explores what benefits a unified model would bring to project management. This paper represents the conceptual development of an integrated framework that will be tested in a range of project management scenarios in various industrial sectors.Design/methodology/approach– Extant literature is used to develop a conceptual framework of an integrated model that will be tested in the field for robustness. The model has been applied to published projects to identify its strengths and weaknesses.Findings– The work shows important implications for improved success of projects from the use of TOC, RAT and resource dependence theory (RDT). Specifically, it emphasizes the need for application of strategic theories to project management.Research limitations/implications– While TOC, RAT and RDT are well established in the context of organization theory, there is limited application in project management. Moreover, the model has yet to be applied in the field. The hypotheses identified in this research are currently being tested using field-based surveys.Practical implications– The research falls short in addressing some resources, e.g. innovation, tacit knowledge and decision making methods in traditional project management context. Therefore, identifying these critical resources in future work and exploiting them as the means of improving project performance would enhance the success of project-based management.Social implications– Project management is an emergent discipline and a project is temporary in nature. Therefore, new ideas and development of theories for project management practices are required. This innovative research, for example, may change the way projects are executed in future.Originality/value– This paper examines the components of a successful project according to the iron triangle, i.e. scope, quality, time and cost. However, through the application of TOC, RAT and RDT into an integrated project-based management framework gives new insights to resources management.

All disciplines require both (1) the development of theories that explain and predict important phenomena and (2) empirical research that tests the theories. Purely conceptual/theoretical articles are central to theory development and are generally more influential than empirical articles. However, not all conceptual articles are equally successful. This article addresses the issue of why some theoretical articles are more successful than others. Using a highly successful theory in marketing, resource-advantage theory, as a case-example, this article develops five guides for authors seeking to develop successful theories: (1) focus theory development on important issues in macromarketing and/or micromarketing, (2) craft theories with high explanatory and predictive power, (3) respect other disciplines’ literatures, (4) publish the theory in nonmarketing journals, and (5) explore the normative implications of the theory.

BackgroundA key outcome of successful advance care planning is consistency between patient goals of care and the care provided. However, assessing consistency is methodologically challenging due to conceptual and logistical...

Marketing has long been criticized for lacking a unifyingtheory and for relying too strongly on theories developed inother fields (Buzzell 1963; Baker 1995; Murray et al.1997). Gummesson (2001, p. 29), for example, describesmarketing management as “a patchwork of fragmentedmodels, assumptions, case stories and checklists on top of apartially obsolete foundation: micro-economics, marketingmix, four Ps, and the marketing of packaged consumergoods.” Concomitant with these criticisms, calls for puttingstronger efforts on theory development in marketing arenearly as old as the academic discipline itself (Alderson andCox 1948) and have been persistently repeated by a varietyof marketing scholars (Day and Montgomery 1999;Malhotra 1999; Carter 2011). However, the response tosuch calls has been muted. In fact, instead of a strongeremphasis on theory, the opposite appears to be the case:Baumgartner and Pieters (2003) showed that marketingpublications overwhelmingly focus on applications andYadav (2009) observed that, among articles published inleading marketing journals during a thirty year period(1978–2007), conceptual articles actually declined. Still,despite the dearth of conceptual articles—or just because oftheir relative scarcity—they receive disproportionatelymore citations (Yadav 2009).So why are there not more marketing scholarsfocusing on theory development? One reason appearsto be the historically strong practitioner influence on thediscipline. And with an increasing influence of practi-tioners, the emphasis “shifted from theoretical toempirical research, from basic to applied thoughtdevelopment, and from educational to occupationalconcerns” (Bartels 1983, p. 33). Consequently, untiltoday, “the majority of marketingacademics more closelyidentify themselves with marketing practice and appliedpractitioner-oriented research, rather than theory develop-ment” (Burton 2005,p.6).Another explanation for the lack of theoretical groundingin marketing may lie in the unresolved discourse amongmarketing scholars on what constitutes a suitable level oftheory aggregation. Venkatesh (1985), for example, arguesthat theories lie on a continuum ranging from those thatfollow a natural science model (highest form) to those thatmerely relate empirical findings to other empirical findings(lowest form). If we were to accept the argument that thelatter would be sufficient to constitute a theory, marketingwould actually be a very theory rich field! Burton (2005)draws an interesting distinction between “theories ofmarketing” and “theories in marketing.” The former aregeneral or universal theories of marketing, such asBagozzi’s(1975) theory of marketing as exchange or Vargoand Lusch’s(2004, 2006) service dominant logic theory,whereas the latter are theories that are frequently rooted inother subject areas, such as psychology, but have proven tobe very useful in researching marketing topics, such asAjzen’s(1985) theory of planned behavior. Some prominentmarketing scholars, such as Hunt (1983) and Gronroos(1994), argue that scholarly efforts in marketing should bedirected to develop the former, that is, theories ofmarketing. Others view grand theories of marketing as tooremoved from marketing practice (Bird 1996), argue thatmarketing cannot be described nor understood by any onegeneral theory (Anderson 1986; Arndt 1985; Burton 2005;Moller 2007) or even regard them as a waste of time andeffort (Prendergast and Berthon 2000).

Theory development, as Professor Hunt details, is incred-ibly important to academic inquiry. Empirical investigationsrely on theory to frame and guide not only the questionsthat are asked, but also the interpretations given to results.Well-crafted academic theory can have a tremendous impactin furthering academic understanding and real worldpractice. But, as with most outputs of high-value, success-ful theory building is difficult to do well.That theory development is - to put it euphemistically -“challenging” is not news to any doctoral student. Memo-ries of my own philosophy of science course still haunt meto this day. Nightmares of third libraries in the sky,mediators, moderators, levels, process models… the list ofaggressors seems endless. What came out of the course,though, was an ability to think more logically, morecritically, and – most importantly – more academically.But, just as knowing how to paint doesn’t make a person onpar with Monet, knowing the mechanics of theorydevelopment doesn’t mean a person’s theory is of anyvalue or use.Professor Hunt’s article fills an aching void for increasedknowledge of what makes a theory not just another theory,but a successful theory. Going beyond the mechanics of thecomponents of sound theory, Professor Hunt’sarticleprovides insight into the factors that propel a theory tonotoriety and, most importantly, adoption and use. Hispaper offers needed advice during a time of relatively lesstheory development among marketing academics. I com-mend him for the effort he has devoted to sharing hiswisdom through this article. What I offer next is a humblediscussion of the five factors Professor Hunt presents. Ihope to offer a sense of the lens that a recent PhD graduatemight use in reading his article. My comments are intendednot as a critique of his article, but as a friendly continuationof the important discussion he has kindly opened.Professor Hunt’s first suggestion is to address animportant issue in marketing. This is undoubtedly key incrafting theory that gains traction within the academiccommunity, yet knowing which issues to devote effort tois incredibly difficult. Prevalence of empirical articles inan area serve only as a rough guide since such articles(hopefully) build on existing theory. Previous theoreticalwork is an excellent basis for building theory, yetfoundation in existing theory does not itself make atheory novel. What instead seems crucial for developingsuccessful theory is a keen eye for recognizing not onlygaps in the literature, but issues of real relevance tomarketing. I offer that enacting Professor Hunt’sadvicedemands marketing academics not only be well readwithin the academic sphere, but also keenly aware ofcurrent issues facing marketing practitioners.The second factor offered is the need for a successfultheory to offer strong explanatory and predictive power. Imost certainly agree with Professor Hunt that good theorymust demonstrate both features, but ask how a researchercan know a priori that his or her theory is likely to provideexplanatory and predictive power. Looking back, the valueof Resource-Advantage Theory is well documented andclear. I ask what diagnostics were available lookingforwards. Were there deliberate features of theory that wereincorporated during its formation to increase its use? Whatlitmus test(s) was used to know the theory was a “winner”before the numerous empirical tests were conducted?Insight into the development process Professor Hunt –

This article contributes to theory development in marketing, in general, and to theory development in marketing ethics, in particular. The proposed “inductive realist model of theory generation” incorporates both (1) recent works in the philosophy of science on discovery processes in science and (2) Hunt’s (International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 25(2), 159–178, 2011, AMS Review, 2(1), 5–18, 2012) inductive realist model of theory status. To illustrate how the model can be used, the author shows how the model can contribute to understanding the development of a general theory of marketing ethics that is frequently referred to as the “Hunt-Vitell theory of ethics.”

Abstract: In Sustainable Futures: Green Engineering, Renewable Energy, and Carbon Solutions this chapter excavated into the transformative potential of integrating green engineering principles, renewable energy advancements, and carbon management strategies to address the global climate crisis. This chapter explores the multifaceted approaches necessary to transition towards a sustainable and resilient future, emphasizing the critical role of innovative technologies, policy frameworks, and societal engagement in mitigating environmental impacts. By examining the current landscape of green engineering and renewable energy solutions alongside the challenges and opportunities presented by carbon capture technologies, the narrative underscores the importance of a holistic approach that balances technological advancements with ethical considerations and equitable access. Through a comprehensive analysis, the chapter highlights the necessity of cross-sectoral collaboration and international cooperation to ensure the successful implementation of sustainable practices that can lead to a significantly reduced carbon footprint and a healthier planet for future generations. This discourse not only illuminates the path forward in harnessing the power of sustainability but also calls for urgent action to reframe our relationship with the environment through responsible stewardship and proactive innovation. Keywords/Index Terms: Green Engineering,Renewable Energy,Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS),Solar Radiation Management (SRM),Sustainability,Climate Change Mitigation,Technological Innovation,Ethical Considerations,Policy Frameworks,Societal Engagement,Cross-Sectoral Collaboration,International Cooperation,Environmental Impact,Equitable Access and Future Generations.

This issue of the Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science (JGSMS) is a tribute to the contributions of Shelby D. Hunt to the marketing discipline. There are nine contributions by – Dennis B. Arnett, Vishag Badrinrayanan, Kshitij Bhoumik, Pelin Bicen, Mayukh Dass, Linda Ferrell, O.C. Ferrell, Shelby D. Hunt, Sreedhar Madhavaram, Heejung Park, Mark Peterson, Rajan Vardarajan, and Scott J. Vitell – that not only pay homage to Professor Hunt’s significant contributions, but also make original contributions that can potentially take the marketing discipline forward. Collectively, the contributions from the special issue are unequivocal on the significance of Professor Hunt’s contributions to the marketing discipline with reference to: (i) theory development in marketing, (ii) programmatic research on marketing theory, marketings’ philosophy debates, channels of distribution, macromarketing and ethics, relationship marketing, resource-advantage theory, and marketing management and strategy, (iii) impact on the marketing discipline, (iv) implications for marketing scholarship, pedagogy, and practice, and (v) advancing the marketing discipline. In conclusion, on the foundations of Professor Hunt’s contributions to research on marketing theory, marketing strategy, marketing ethics, macromarketing, resource-advantage theory of competition, and channels of distribution, compelling opportunities are abound for marketing scholarship.

Los estudios de religiosidad popular tienen por delante un brillante futuro, no obstante amenazado por intrincadas dificultades tanto conceptuales como metodológicas. En este artículo abordamos tres tipos de restricciones (moralistas, materialistas e historicistas) responsables en buena medida de la mirada sesgada, paternalista y eurocéntrica que aun hoy caracteriza nuestra idea general de religiosidad popular, especialmente en Centroamérica.TEORÍA Y PRAXIS No. 23, Junio-Diciembre 2013; 3-22

Although creativity is considered one of the key ‘twenty-first-century skills’, this ability is still often misunderstood. Persistent conceptual and methodological barriers have limited educational implications. This article reviews and discusses the three critical issues of ‘nature’, ‘measure’, and ‘nurture’ of creative potential in educational settings. A current perspective on the nature of creative potential is presented. In contrast to a classic, but inaccurate ‘g-factor view’ of creativity, this perspective emphasises a multidimensional and partly domain-specific view, upon which new assessment tools can be developed. Based on a more comprehensive evaluation of a child's creative potential, educational programmes tailored to a child's strengths and weaknesses can be offered. These perspectives are discussed in light of current findings in the field.

Beginning in the late twentieth century a strong wave of published research has been using the frame of social suffering, which is the broadest and deepest form of human suffering. Social suffering as a social movement promotes the concept as capturing the essence of how peoples’ suffering is produced and conditioned by society. Social suffering researchers use a wide variety of evidence to capture the catastrophic burden of those trapped by the human plight of tormenting perplexity. Implicitly if not explicitly, social suffering has come to represent a call to moral responsibility and humanitarian care. After briefly reviewing the history of the acceptance and rejection of humanitarianism as a moral compass for social science research, I argue that this wave will return the social sciences to again recognize the moral power of humanitarianism. This argument is followed by recent developments that operate to make some researchers revise earlier judgements in which humanitarianism was dismissed as a misguided fanaticism that had no part to play in academic life. Removal of these conceptual and methodological barriers will make possible a wide range of research that will help guide the design of social changes that have the potential to greatly alleviate suffering locally and globally.

BackgroundThe implementation of hybrid Bt cotton unique to India has been heralded as a grand success by government agencies, seed companies and other proponents, and yet yields have stagnated at low levels and production costs have risen 2.5–3-fold. The low-yield hybrid cotton system of India contributes thousands of farmer suicides to the annual national toll. Conceptual and methodological barriers have hindered bioeconomic analysis of the ecological and social sustainability of such cross-scale agro-ecological problems in time and geographic space, under global technology and climate change. As a paradigm shift, we use conceptually simple, parameter-sparse, theoretically based, mechanistic, weather-driven physiologically based demographic models (PBDMs) to deconstruct the bio-economics of the Indian cotton system.ResultsOur analysis of Indian hybrid cotton system explains some extant ecological and economic problems, and suggests a viable solution. Specifically, the model accurately captured the age-stage mass dynamics of rainfed and irrigated cotton growth/development and the interactions with the key pest pink bollworm across five south-central Indian states, and enabled identification of proximate bioeconomic factors responsible for low yield and their relationship to farmer suicides. The results are reinforced by analysis of Ministry of Agriculture annual state-level data. We explain why short-season, high-density non-GM cotton is a highly viable solution for Indian cotton farmers in rainfed and irrigated cotton areas of the five states, and possibly nationally. The transition from a theoretical bioeconomic construct to a real-world regional bioeconomic analysis proved seamless.ConclusionsThe hybrid long-season Bt technology for rainfed and irrigated cotton is unique to India, and is a value capture mechanism. This technology is suboptimal leading to stagnant yields, high input costs, increased insecticide use, and low farmer incomes that increase economic distress that is a proximate cause of cotton farmer suicides. The current GM Bt technology adds costs in rainfed cotton without commensurate increases in yield. Non-GM pure-line high-density short-season varieties could double rainfed cotton yield, reduce costs, decrease insecticide use, and help ameliorate suicides. The GM hybrid technology is inappropriate for incorporation in short-season high-density varieties.

Purpose: The convergence of e-commerce and sustainability sparks an investigation into their implications and approaches. Despite the efficiency promised by online shopping, apprehensions regarding packaging waste and energy use emphasize the necessity for detailed scrutiny of the environmental impact of e-commerce and its contribution to sustainable consumption in the ever-evolving global market. Design/Methodology/Approach: This research paper aims to investigate the connection between sustainability and e-commerce, employing the (ADO) i.e. Adoption, Diffusion, and Optimization (ADO) framework to analyse antecedents, decisions, and outcomes. The research explores theoretical foundations, such as Industrial Ecology, B2C business models, and the Resource-Advantage Theory, to reveal the multifaceted relationship between e-commerce and sustainability. Strategic decisions, varying from impacts on energy consumption to the integration of sustainable practices in e-commerce, are studied, shedding light on the multifaceted landscape of e-commerce sustainability. Determinate outcomes, including enhanced sustainability factors, positive impacts on commitment and e-word of mouth, and noteworthy contributions to UN Sustainable Development Goals, emphasize the transformative potential of e-commerce. Findings/Result: The study assessment emphasizes for the continued integration of sustainability into e-commerce strategies, urging all stakeholders to navigate complexities and adopt eco-friendly practices for a better sustainable digital future. The discussion synthesizes diverse perspectives, highlighting the dynamic nature of e-commerce and its capacity to positively influence societal and environmental objectives. Originality Value: The paper has used ADO approach which ensures the novelty of the research for the topic under study. Paper Type: Research paper

Sustainable futures using nuclear energy