European Journal of MarketingSocial responsibility in environmental marketing planningJari Kärnä, Eric Hansen, Heikki Juslin,

Article information:To cite this document:Jari Kärnä, Eric Hansen, Heikki Juslin, (2003) "Social responsibility in environmentalmarketing planning", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Issue: 5/6, pp.848-871, https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560310465170Permanent link to this document:https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560310465170

Downloaded on: 29 October 2017, At: 11:35 (PT)References: this document contains references to 27 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 9654 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:(2005),"Green marketing: legend, myth, farce or prophesy?", Qualitative Market Research: An InternationalJournal, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp. 357-370 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/13522750510619733">https://doi.org/10.1108/13522750510619733</a>(2005),"A stakeholder model for implementing social responsibility in marketing", European Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 39 Iss 9/10 pp. 956-977 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560510610662">https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560510610662</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:616458 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 1

1:35

29

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

Social responsibility inenvironmental marketing

planningJari Karna

Department of Forest Economics, University of Helsinki,Helsinki, FinlandEric Hansen

Department of Forest Products, Oregon Sate University, Corvallis,Oregon, USA, and

Heikki JuslinDepartment of Forest Economics, University of Helsinki,

Helsinki, Finland

Keywords Green issues, Marketing, Corporate responsibility, Social responsibility, Government,Forestry

Abstract Companies along the forestry-wood value chain from four European countries weresurveyed in order to examine social responsibility in values and environmental emphasis intheir marketing planning. Most of the Finnish, Swedish, German and UK companiesemphasise environmental issues in their values, marketing strategies, structures and functions.The companies were classified into three groups according to their responsibility values basedon the concepts of redirecting customers towards sustainability and the role of governmentalbalancing of markets. “Proactive green marketers” (companies emphasising pursuingsustainability and believing in free market system) emphasise environmental issues in theirmarketing planning clearly more than traditional “consumption marketers”, and more than“reactive green marketers” (companies emphasising pursuing sustainability undergovernmental balancing). We interpret that proactive marketers are the most genuine groupin implementing environmental marketing voluntarily and seeking competitive advantagethrough environmental friendliness. Thus, the example of these progressive companies shouldbe the direction towards sustainable development in business and society. The results also giveevidence that green values, environmental marketing strategies, structures and functions arelogically connected to each other as hypothesised according to the model of environmentalmarketing used to guide this study.

IntroductionA demand for sustainability and social responsibility in businessBusiness leaders agree that managing in times of turbulence and acceleratingchange challenges their traditional views of competitiveness and successfactors needed for survival and profitability. Today’s managers must deal withglobalisation of markets, increasing intensity of competition, rapidtechnological changes, a shift from an industrial economy to a knowledge,human capital and information based economy, demographic changes,

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

http://www .emeraldinsight .com/researchregister http:// www.emeraldinsigh t.com/0309-056 6.htm

EJM37,5/6

848

Received January 2001Revised May 2001 andSeptember 2001

European Journal of MarketingVol. 37 No. 5/6, 2003pp. 848-871q MCB UP Limited0309-0566DOI 10.1108/03090560310465170

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 1

1:35

29

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

environmental challenges, changing value systems and consumer preferences.The changes in society are forcing companies to consider the views of variousinterest groups in decision making. Building relationships with customers,suppliers, employees, communities and other stakeholders can become centralto competitiveness and form the foundation for a new, progressive and people-centered corporate strategy which attacks the sources – not the symptoms – ofchallenges facing business today. This brings us to the increased importance ofcorporate social responsibility (CSR) (Palazzi and Starcher, 2000; Mazarr, 1999).

Corporate social responsibility and business successCompany responsibilities are often divided into economic, social, andenvironmental categories similar to the categories proposed in the popularconcept of sustainable development (Peattie, 1995). However, there is no single,commonly accepted definition of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Itgenerally refers to business decision making linked to ethical values,compliance with legal requirements, and respect for people, communities andthe environment. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development(WBCSD) defines CSR as “the commitment of business to contribute tosustainable economic development, working with employees, their families, thelocal community and society at large to improve quality of life” (WBCSD, 2000).CSR means going beyond the legal, technical, and economic requirements of thecompany (Carrol, 1999). Palazzi and Starcher (2000) say that in WesternEurope, Japan, and North America, an increasing number of companies arefinding that it makes good business sense to fully integrate the interests andneeds of customers, employees, suppliers, communities, and our planet(environment) – as well as those of shareholders – into corporate strategies.They argue that over the long term, this approach can generate more growthand profits. There can be no social responsibility without profits.

Environmental marketingMarketing bridges the company and its markets in a societal context.Satisfying the needs of customers in a profitable way is the core of marketingideology and in turn is a core of the market economy. Environmental or “green”marketing has been seen as a tool towards sustainable development andsatisfaction of different stakeholders. Peattie (1995) defines green marketing as“the holistic management process responsible for identifying, anticipating andsatisfying the requirements of customers and society, in a profitable andsustainable way”. The basic question for green marketing is: how shouldenvironmental and social responsibility be integrated into traditionalutilitarian business and marketing planning?

Banerjee (1999) and Wehrmeyer (1999) have analysed the greening ofstrategic marketing with implications for marketing theory and practice.Hierarchical levels of strategic (green) marketing are analysed in theseacademic discussions. Also Pujari and Wright (1996) address the application of

Environmentalmarketing

planning

849

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 1

1:35

29

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

the strategy, structure and process framework for organisational and product-level response to environmental imperatives. Kotler (2000) uses the term“societal marketing concept” to cover social and ecological responsibilities.Recent developments show that a green agenda following holistic principleshas now been integrated into mainstream marketing literature (McDonagh andProthero, 1997). However, it seems that many companies feel uncertain howthey should react to green challenges. As Peattie (1999) states, “Without agreener philosophy and vision of marketing, the greening of marketing practicewill be an uphill battle”.

Sustainability, regulation and CSRThe question of ecological responsibilities has been a bit vague. During thelast few decades environmental legislation has developed everywhere. Itimplies that ecological responsibilities belong to government. However,globalisation has altered the ability of governments to carry their social andenvironmental responsibilities. On the other hand, strengthening economicliberalism emphasises that the responsibility of common good can be left tomarket forces. Sheth and Parvatiyar (1995) argue that sustainabledevelopment can be achieved only by proactive corporate marketing andactive government intervention. They suggest a two-dimensional shift in theapproach to ecological problems: from consumption marketing to sustainablemarketing and from invisible hand to a more visible hand of the government(Figure 1).

However, Sheth and Parvatiyar’s (1995) conclusion for the direction of “newmarketing orientation” seems a bit too straightforward. Porter and van derLinde (1995) and Miles and Covin (2000) have further conceptualised the role ofgovernmental balancing in environmental marketing. Furthermore, another

Figure 1.New orientation forecological marketing

EJM37,5/6

850

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 1

1:35

29

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

way of looking at corporate social responsibility is the two-dimensional modelproposed by Quazi and O’Brien (2000) where they define wide vs narrowresponsibility, and benefits vs costs from CSR action.

Miles and Covin (2000) define two mutually-exclusive philosophies towardsenvironmental management:

(1) the “compliance model” of environmental management; and

(2) the “strategic model” of environmental management.

The compliance model suggests that corporations must simply comply with allapplicable regulations and laws. This is a typical traditional “defensive”environmental management approach. The strategic approach toenvironmental performance suggests that firms attempt to maximisestockholder returns by utilising an environmental strategy “proactively” tocreate a sustainable competitive advantage. They argue that firms primarilymarketing commodity products and competing primarily on the basis of pricewill tend to adopt the compliance model of environmental management,whereas firms that primarily market highly differentiated products will tend toadopt the strategic model of environmental management.

Also Porter and van der Linde (1995) emphasise environmentalresponsibility and improvements as a source of competitive advantage intoday’s dynamic economy. They argue that innovating to meet regulations canbring offsets: using inputs better, creating better products, or improvingproduct yields. Furthermore, they list six major reasons why regulation isneeded but also define “good regulation” supporting innovations versus “badregulation” damaging competitiveness. According to them, now is the time fora paradigm shift to bring environmental improvement and competitivenesstogether. Through innovations companies can reap offsets that will go beyondthose directly stemming from regulatory pressures.

Objectives of the studyThe purpose of the empirical study is to measure, describe, and compare howsocial responsibility is emphasised in the values of members of the forestry-wood value chain in four European countries. Environmental marketing isdescribed based on three hierarchical levels: marketing strategies, structuresand functions. Relationships among these dimensions are examined. Thespecific questions under focus are:

. What are the value-based dimensions of companies’ social responsibility?

. Is it possible to categorise companies based on their social responsibilityvalues?

. How are environmental issues incorporated into company marketingplanning?

Environmentalmarketing

planning

851

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 1

1:35

29

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

. How do the surveyed countries, industry sectors, and responsibilitycategories differ regarding environmental marketing planning?

. What are the relationships among dimensions of social responsibility anddimensions of environmental marketing?

Theoretical frame of referenceThe theoretical framework of the study (Figure 2) shows the independentvariables (marketing units) used in the empirical study and their relationship tothe model of environmental marketing. The model is based on the integratedmodel of marketing planning (Juslin, 1992, 1994). Concepts by Ansoff (1965)and Shirley et al. (1981) have especially inspired the conceptual ideas and thehierarchy presented in the model. The model contains the usual components ofmarketing planning presented in marketing textbooks (e.g. Kotler, 2000).However, the background ideology and hierarchical structure differ notablyfrom the most common models, e.g. the frequently-used “four P model”,presented in marketing textbooks. Environmental marketing in this modelmeans that environmental issues are genuinely integrated into marketingdecisions on three hierarchical levels: marketing strategies, structures andfunctions. Environmental marketing planning should be based on businessvalues emphasising social and environmental responsibility.

Figure 2.Theoretical frameworkof the study

EJM37,5/6

852

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 1

1:35

29

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

The core of environmental marketing is the strategic product and customerdecisions in which environmental issues are emphasised and environmentalstrengths are used as a competitive advantage. Implementation of thestrategies is not possible without structures (e.g. environmentalmanagement systems, organisation, contact channels) takingenvironmental issues into account. Marketing structures and functions(communication, advertising, personal relationships) should be planned sothat they carry out and support the environmental marketing strategies.However, an insufficient relationship among strategies, structures, andfunctions can lead to unfounded claims about a company’s environmentalperformance. This kind of “greenwashing” is the misuse of the principles ofenvironmental marketing. (Juslin, 1994)

The integration of environmental issues into business values and marketingplanning examined in this study tests, by using the terminology of Miles andCovin (2000), if corporations are adopting the “compliance model” or the“strategic model” of environmental management. Also the desired direction of“new marketing orientation” suggested by Sheth and Parvatiyar (1995) istested by examining the dimensions of social responsibility in relation toenvironmental marketing. Furthermore, green “innovations” as a source ofcompetitive advantage proposed by Porter and van der Linde (1995) fit well inthis theoretical framework.

Operationalisation of variables used to measure business values andenvironmental marketing planning are presented within the results of a seriesof factor analyses (Tables I-IV). Overall the operationalisations used in thisstudy are not industry specific and can be applied to any industry sector. Onlyitem 7 in Table IV refers to independent third party certification, and woodproducts that come from “well managed forests”.

Propositions to be testedThe principle assumption to be tested (P1) in this study is that environmentallyconscious decisions on the structural and functional levels of marketingplanning obtain their objectives from marketing strategies. Those marketingstrategies are based on the objectives of the business unit, in this caseenvironmental business values of the business unit:

P1. The more environmental issues are emphasised in business values, themore environmentally active companies are in their decisions onstrategic, structural and functional levels of marketing

The purpose of P2 is to test the concept presented by Sheth and Parvatiyar(1995) (see Figure 1) who argue that sustainable development can beachieved only by proactive corporate marketing and active governmentintervention. We challenge their conclusion concerning the direction of “newmarketing orientation” because we consider it too straightforward. P2 is

Environmentalmarketing

planning

853

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 1

1:35

29

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

derived from conceptualisation and ideas proposed by Porter and van derLinde (1995), and Miles and Covin (2000) who emphasise environmentalperformance as a source of competitive advantage resulting from“innovations”, or adopting a “strategic model” for environmentalmanagement:

P2. Companies that are most environmentally active (pursuing “strategicmodel” or “innovating”) will emphasise redirection towardssustainable development and free market system (invisible hand)

Variablea Mean (SD) Factor I Factor II Factor III h2

Companies should redirect theircustomers towards lessenvironmentally harmful consumption 4.5 (1.3) 0.780 20.034 0.003 0.610

Companies should use marketing tools toredirect customer behaviour towardsenvironmentally sustainableconsumption 4.5 (1.3) 0.699 0.007 0.091 0.497

Environmentally friendly products are anecessity in the future and the price willinclude the associated costs 4.8 (1.2) 0.228 0.005 0.025 0.115

Adequate social responsibility forcompany executives is to maintain aprofitable business 3.4 (1.7) 0.125 0.654 20.057 0.447

The sole function of marketing is todetermine and satisfy the needs ofconsumers 3.7 (1.5) 0.066 0.628 0.012 0.399

To operate in a socially responsible way,companies only need to obey laws andregulations 2.8 (1.4) 20.116 0.352 20.038 0.139

In decision making company profits willcarry a heavier weighting thanenvironmentally friendliness 4.2 (1.3) 20.036 0.265 0.212 0.116

The free market system will take care ofglobal environmental problems with nogovernmental interference 2.7 (1.3) 0.006 0.288 2 0.620 0.467

Governments must balanceenvironmental and economic values bypolicies which regulate markets 4.0 (1.4) 0.138 0.111 0.421 0.209

Initial Eigenvalue (cumulative percentageof variance ¼ 52.9) 1.791 1.720 1.246

Variance explained after rotation (%)(cumulative ¼ 32.7 per cent) 13.4 12.4 6.9

Reliability coefficient Alpha (ofhighlighted variables) 0.707 0.592 –

Note: a Scale: 1 ¼ completely disagree to 6 ¼ completely agree; n ¼ 452

Table I.Dimensions ofcompany’s socialresponsibility

EJM37,5/6

854

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 1

1:35

29

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

Data and analysisData collectionThe cross-sectional data for the study was collected mainly through personalinterviews with a structured quantitative questionnaire. Personal interviewswere used when possible to assure a high total and item response. Quotasampling was utilized with the objective of representative data for the strategicbusiness units (SBU) of the forest industry value chain including companies inFinland, Sweden Germany and the UK. Data was collected in Finland,Germany and in the UK during the winter of 1997 in the context of an EC-FAIRresearch project on “potential markets for certified forest products in Europe”

Variablea Mean (SD) Factor I h2

In your strategic product decisions, how much isthe environmental friendliness of the productemphasised? 3.4 (1.0) 0.623 0.388

When selecting your most important customergroup(s), how important is their level ofenvironmental awareness in your decisionmaking 2.9 (1.3) 0.589 0.347

How important is environmental friendlinesswhen planning the competitive emphasis foryour most important products and markets? 3.2 (1.0) 0.725 0.526

Initial Eigenvalue (61.1 percent of variance) 1.832Variance explained after extraction (%) 42.0Reliability coefficient Alpha 0.670

Note: a Scale: 1-5; n ¼ 443

Table II.The dimension of

environmentalmarketingstrategies

Variablea Mean (SD) Factor I h2

How strong an impact have environmental issueshad in the values and philosophy ofmanagement in your company? 3.3 (1.1) 0.680 0.460

How strong an impact have environmental issueshad in the planning and information systems(type of information used etc.)? 2.8 (1.1) 0.750 0.563

How strong an impact have environmental issueshad in the personnel recruitment and training? 2.6 (1.1) 0.758 0.575

How strong an impact have environmental issueshad in the distribution channels? 2.5 (1.1) 0.599 0.359

Initial Eigenvalue (61.4 percent of variance) 2.456Variance explained after extraction (%) 49.0Reliability coefficient Alpha 0.790

Note: a Scale: 1 ¼ no impact at all to 5 ¼ strong impact; n ¼ 447

Table III.The dimension of

marketingstructures

Environmentalmarketing

planning

855

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 1

1:35

29

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

Var

iab

lea

Mea

n(S

D)

Fac

tor

IF

acto

rII

Fac

tor

III

h2

Fre

qu

ency

com

pan

yp

roce

du

res:

exam

inin

gen

vir

onm

enta

lin

form

atio

nin

bu

sin

ess

dec

isio

nm

akin

g(s

cale

1-4)

2.5

(0.8

)0.859

2.0

065

0.16

80.

770

Fre

qu

ency

com

pan

yp

roce

du

res:

con

sid

erat

ion

ofen

vir

onm

enta

lco

nce

rns

inst

rate

gic

pla

nn

ing

(sca

le1-

4)2.

6(0

.9)

0.749

20.

082

0.25

20.

631

Fre

qu

ency

com

pan

yp

roce

du

res:

inv

itin

gin

pu

tfr

omen

vir

onm

enta

lg

rou

ps

wh

enm

akin

gen

vir

onm

enta

lb

usi

nes

sd

ecis

ion

s(s

cale

1-4)

1.7

(0.8

)0.522

0.04

70.

144

0.29

5F

req

uen

cyco

mp

any

pro

ced

ure

s:in

vit

ing

inp

ut

from

con

sum

ers’

gro

up

sw

hen

mak

ing

env

iron

men

talb

usi

nes

sd

ecis

ion

s(s

cale

1-4)

1.5

(0.7

)0.

301

0.11

80.

140

0.12

4F

req

uen

cyco

mp

any

pro

ced

ure

s:ca

rry

ing

out

cust

omer

surv

eys

for

mar

ket

ing

pla

nn

ing

(sca

le1-

4)2.

3(0

.9)

0.24

20.

004

0.21

20.

104

En

vir

onm

enta

lfri

end

lin

ess

can

con

ver

tan

ord

inar

yp

rod

uct

into

asp

ecia

lp

rod

uct

and

that

isre

flec

ted

inth

ep

rice

2.7

(1.3

)0.

076

0.816

0.00

50.

672

Cer

tifi

cati

onle

ads

toa

pri

cep

rem

ium

for

the

pro

du

ctin

qu

esti

on2.

6(1

.3)

20.

011

0.718

20.

099

0.52

5H

owst

ron

gan

imp

act

hav

een

vir

onm

enta

lis

sues

had

inp

rici

ng

ofa

com

pan

y’s

pro

du

cts

(e.g

.g

reen

pre

miu

m)

2.0

(1.2

)0.

220

0.29

50.

178

0.13

3It

isn

otp

ossi

ble

tog

eta

hig

her

pri

cefo

ren

vir

onm

enta

lly

frie

nd

lyp

rod

uct

s3.

2(1

.3)

0.04

02

0.27

82

0.08

80.

087

How

stro

ng

anim

pac

th

ave

env

iron

men

tal

issu

esh

adin

adv

erti

sin

gan

dco

mm

un

icat

ion

cam

pai

gn

s3.

0(1

.3)

0.30

10.

047

0.833

0.78

7H

owst

ron

gan

imp

act

hav

een

vir

onm

enta

lis

sues

had

inp

erso

nal

con

tact

s/se

llin

g3.

1(1

.1)

0.31

50.

105

0.624

0.50

0In

itia

lE

igen

val

ue

(cu

mu

lati

ve

per

cen

tag

eof

var

ian

ce¼

65.1

)3.

153

1.84

01.

170

Var

ian

ceex

pla

ined

afte

rro

tati

on(%

)(c

um

ula

tiv

e¼

42.4

per

cen

t)17

.912

.611

.9R

elia

bil

ity

coef

fici

ent

Alp

ha

(of

hig

hli

gh

ted

var

iab

les)

.763

0.72

80.

758

Note:

aS

cale

:1-

5,n¼

442

Table IV.Dimensions ofenvironmentalmarketing functions

EJM37,5/6

856

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 1

1:35

29

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

and the equivalent data from Sweden was collected during the fall 1998 in thecontext of a University of Helsinki MSc thesis. In Finland and Sweden thesampling emphasis was on the beginning of the forestry-wood value chain andin Germany and the UK it was towards the end of the forestry-wood valuechain. This sampling emphasis was considered relevant because in Europeanforest products markets the Nordic countries are suppliers for CentralEuropean companies. Thus, we describe the sample as covering the forestry-wood value chain which includes primary wood processors, secondarywood/paper processors, publishers, and marketing channel intermediariesincluding DIY retailers. The broad sampling scheme and generaloperationalisations used in the study are strong indicators of thegeneralizability of the results outlined below.

The person with the highest responsibility in marketing planning withineach unit was targeted. Table V shows the number of interviews and theestimated coverage of production in each country. The German coverage isestimated to be good within the paper and paperboard sector, but other sectorsare difficult to evaluate (Rametsteiner et al., 1999). In total, 27 out of 115questions (dependent variables) in the original questionnaire were used in thisstudy. For a more detailed description of questionnaire development and datacollection procedures, see Rametsteiner et al. (1999) and Steineck (1999).

AnalysisInterpretation of the data called for a variety of analysis techniques. At themost basic level, means and the end points (two extreme points) of the Likert-type scales were used to interpret the magnitude of ratings. The questions(dependent variables) were self-appraisals in five- or six-point Likert-typevariables, e.g. 1 ¼ not important at all to 5 ¼ very important. For clearerinterpretation of results, factor analysis (maximum likelihood, varimaxrotation) was used to examine the dimensions inherent in the data and as a datareduction tool (Lewis-Beck, 1994). Results and the detailed statistics of theanalyses are shown in Tables I-IV. In each case, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)measure of sampling adequacy, Bartlett’s test for sphericity, and Eigenvalues,as well as the judgement of the researchers were included in the decisionssurrounding the number of factors that most meaningfully represented thelarger number of variables. The reliability of the factor solutions was testedusing the reliability coefficient Alpha.

Orthogonal factors of companies’ social responsibilities were used ingrouping the companies by K-means clustering (Anderberg, 1973). Indicativesignificance testing was used, although the sampling was not pure randomsampling, but closer to the total population. Significant differences amongcountries and industry sectors were identified by comparing the means offactor score coefficients using one-way ANOVA (Bonferroni, sig. level 0.05) orthrough the use of the x 2-test within responsibility categories. Only those

Environmentalmarketing

planning

857

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 1

1:35

29

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

Ind

ust

ryse

ctor

FIN

SW

EU

KG

ER

Numberof

interviews(total454)

Pu

lp,

pap

eran

dp

aper

boa

rd34

229

13S

awm

ills

and

woo

db

ased

pan

els

4644

203

Sec

ond

ary

woo

dp

roce

ssin

g20

1442

57M

ark

etin

gch

ann

elin

term

edia

ries

1112

2124

Pap

eran

dp

aper

boa

rdb

uy

ers

43

848

Tot

al11

495

100

145

Estim

atedcoverage

Pu

lp,

pap

eran

dp

aper

boa

rd77

per

cen

tof

the

pro

du

ctio

n(1

00p

erce

nto

nco

mp

any

lev

el)

35p

erce

nt

ofth

ep

rod

uct

ion

70p

erce

nt

ofth

ep

rod

uct

ion

Saw

mil

lsan

dw

ood

bas

edp

anel

s70

per

cen

tof

the

pro

du

ctio

n(s

awm

ills

)10

0p

erce

nt(

pan

els)

65p

erce

nt

ofth

ep

rod

uct

ion

(saw

mil

ls)

40p

erce

nt

(pan

els)

60p

erce

nt

ofth

ep

rod

uct

ion

(saw

mil

ls)

100

per

cen

t(p

anel

s)S

econ

dar

yw

ood

pro

cess

ing

20-8

0p

erce

nt

dep

end

ing

onth

ed

efin

edb

ran

ch12

per

cen

t20

-80

per

cen

td

epen

din

gon

the

defi

ned

bra

nch

Mar

ket

ing

chan

nel

inte

rmed

iari

es70

per

cen

tof

the

vol

um

etr

aded

17p

erce

nt

80p

erce

nt

ofth

ev

olu

me

trad

ed,

100

per

cen

tof

the

DIY

reta

ilP

aper

and

pap

erb

oard

bu

yer

s40

per

cen

tof

the

ind

ust

rial

pap

erp

urc

has

es50

per

cen

tof

the

ind

ust

rial

pap

erp

urc

has

es

Table V.Number ofinterviews andestimated coverage

EJM37,5/6

858

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 1

1:35

29

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

differences found to be statistically significant are reported along with theirassociated p-values. Finally, correlation examination (Pearson) was used toanalyse the relationships among the different dimensions. (Bagozzi, 1994;Malhotra, 1993)

Results of the studyDimensions of social responsibilitySocial responsibility values of respondents were examined using statementscovering economic, ecological, and social aspects of business management.Table I presents the means and standard deviations of the dependent variables,and the extracted factor solution. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy(0.58) and Bartlett’s test for sphericity ( p , 0:000) both indicated that thevariable set was appropriate for factor analysis. This maximum likelihoodsolution of three factors explains 32.7 percent of the total variation (afterrotation) in the variable set.

Environmental friendliness and social responsibility of companies were seenby respondents as a necessity in society. Almost 90 percent thought thatenvironmentally friendly products are a necessity in the future (rating 5 and 6).A total of 80 percent believed that companies should redirect their customerstowards less environmentally harmful consumption. Governmental regulationin balancing environmental and economic values was supported by two thirdsof the respondents.

Within the factor solution, factor I received the strongest loadings onredirecting customer behaviour towards environmentally friendlyconsumption. This factor was named “Redirection of customers towardssustainability”. The loadings on factor II refer to traditional utilitarianbusiness values. It was named “Profitability and customer satisfactionorientation”. The bipolar factor III was named “Free market systemorientation vs governmental balancing”. The divergence between countriesand industry sectors in these dimensions was studied by comparing themeans of the factor score coefficients in one-way ANOVA. The results arepresented in Tables VI and VII.

Redirection ofcustomers towards

sustainability

Profitability andcustomer satisfaction

orientation

Free market system vsgovernmental

balancingCountry Mean F-prob. , Mean F-prob. , Mean F-prob. ,

Finland –0.091 –0.435 –0.165Sweden –0.070 0.001 –0.287 0.000 –0.056 0.003Germany 0.240 0.449 0.043UK –0.181 0.124 0.185

Table VI.Divergence of

company’s socialresponsibility

among countries

Environmentalmarketing

planning

859

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 1

1:35

29

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

The results of the one-way ANOVA with the factor score coefficients indicatethat the German industry emphasises redirection of customers towardssustainability as a dimension of social responsibility more than industries inother countries. On the other hand, German and UK companies emphasise therole of profitability more than Finnish and Swedish companies. The resultsshow that redirection of customers towards sustainability and a profitabilityorientation are not mutually exclusive. The difference concerning emphasis ona free market system compared to governmental balancing indicates thatFinnish companies favour a free market system while UK companiesemphasise governmental balancing.

Redirection of customers towards sustainability is emphasised more bypaper buyers, marketing channels and secondary wood processors than thepulp and paper industry. The same three industry sectors closest to end-usersalso emphasise profitability more than the pulp and paper and sawmills andpanel sectors. The pulp and paper industry emphasises a free market systemmore than other industry sectors.

Company categories of social responsibilityFactor scores from the factors I and III outlined in Table I were used in aK-means cluster analysis in order to categorise the surveyed companiesaccording to their values concerning environmental business responsibilities.The resulting clusters fit well the matrix proposed by Sheth and Parvatiyar(1995) (see Figure 1) and proves that the model can be operationalised.

Three- and four-cluster solutions were considered but F-test and further facevalidity supported clustering the companies into three groups:

(1) proactive green marketers emphasising redirection towardssustainability and free market system;

(2) reactive green marketers emphasising pursuing sustainability undergovernmental balancing; and

(3) consumption marketers having lower scores in the sustainability factor(Table VIII).

Redirection ofcustomers towards

sustainability

Profitability andcustomer

satisfactionorientation

Free market systemvs governmental

balancingIndustry sector Mean F-prob. , Mean F-prob. , Mean F-prob. ,

Pulp and paper –0.284 –0.296 –0.296Sawmills and panels –0.098 –0.248 0.036Second. wood processing 0.072 0.003 0.180 0.000 0.084 0.003Marketing channels 0.171 0.156 0.029Paper buyers 0.182 0.254 0.082

Table VII.Divergence ofcompany’s societalresponsibilityamong industrysectors

EJM37,5/6

860

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 1

1:35

29

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

It was expected that emphasising pursuing sustainability and free marketsystem would reflect proactive environmental attitude beyond governmentalpressures (P2). According to Sheth and Parvatiyar (1995), the “new marketingorientation” consists of sustainable marketing by companies and activeinvolvement by government in the marketplace referring in this case to cluster II(reactive green marketers). Defining whether consumption marketers emphasisea free market system or governmental balancing was considered less importantin this cluster solution.

Table IX outlines cross tabulations between countries and industry sectorswith x 2-test to analyse the divergence of group membership.

Divergence among countries and industry sectors within this typologyindicate that German and UK companies are more likely to belong to reactivegreen marketers. The proportion of UK companies is lowest within proactivegreen marketers. Regarding the industry sectors, a majority of the pulp andpaper industry is divided between proactive green marketers and consumption

Mean of factor score ¼ cluster center (SD)

Company group n Percentage

Redirection ofcustomers towards

sustainability

Free marketsystem vs

governmental balancing

I Proactive green marketers 145 32 0.337 (0.509) 20.693 (0.446)II Reactive green marketers 189 42 0.458 (0.460) 0.518 (0.373)III Consumption marketers 120 26 21.129 (0.551) 0.022 (0.654)Total 454 100F-ratio 416.743 256.894p-value , 0.000 0.000

Table VIII.Company groups

based onenvironmental

businessresponsibilities

(K-meansclustering)

Proactive greenmarketers

Reactive greenmarketers

Consumptionmarketers

Rowpercent

Columnpercent

Rowpercent

Columnpercent

Rowpercent

Columnpercent

Country (x 2¼12.94, df ¼ 6, p , 0.044)Finland 36 28 34 21 30 28Sweden 35 23 37 18 28 23Germany 34 34 48 37 18 22UK 22 15 46 24 32 27

Industry sector (x 2¼14.43, df ¼ 8, p , 0.071)Pulp and paper 39 21 24 10 37 24Sawmills and panels 28 22 43 25 29 28Second. wood processing 31 28 47 33 22 24Marketing channels 32 15 47 17 21 12Paper buyers 32 14 44 15 24 12

Table IX.Divergence ofresponsibilitycategories bycountries and

industry sectors

Environmentalmarketing

planning

861

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 1

1:35

29

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

marketers. Nearly half of the other sectors’ representatives are reactive greenmarketers.

Decisions for environmental marketing strategiesEmphasis on environmental issues in product, customer and competitiveadvantage strategies was measured by asking the questions presented withinTable II. Factor analysis was performed on this variable set and a one-factorsolution was found (KMO ¼ 0:66 and Bartlett’s test p , 0:000). This uni-dimensional solution explaining 42 percentof the total variance was named“Environmental emphasis in marketing strategies”.

As seen in Table II, environmental friendliness (self defined by therespondent) was seen as a rather important issue when planning thecompetitive emphasis for the most important products and markets. About 40percent of the respondents regarded it important, and 23 percent did not.Environmental friendliness as a product characteristic is quite emphasised.Fifty percent of the respondents emphasise it in their strategic productdecisions while 18 percent do not. Customer environmental awareness had animportant role in customer selection for 36 percent of the respondents. For 38percent it did not play an important role. Divergence regarding environmentalemphasis in marketing strategies among countries, industry sectors andresponsibility classification was examined by comparing the means of factorscore coefficients in a one-way ANOVA (Table X).

Environmental emphasis in marketingstrategies

Mean F-prob. ,

CountryFinland 0.095Sweden 20.179 0.001GermanyGermany 0.273UK 20.350

Industry sectorPulp and paper 0.157Sawmills and panels 20.185Second. wood processing 0.038 0.043Marketing channels 20.054Paper buyers 0.119

Responsibility classificationProactive green marketers 0.309Reactive green marketers 20.053 0.000Consumption marketersConsumption marketers 20.293

Table X.Divergence ofenvironmentalmarketingstrategies amongcountries, industrysectors andresponsibilityclassification

EJM37,5/6

862

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 1

1:35

29

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

The results indicate that environmental emphasis in marketing strategies isstrongest in Germany, and lowest in the UK. A significant difference was alsofound between Germany and Sweden, and between Finland and the UK.Regarding industry sectors, environmental emphasis was strongest in the pulpand paper industry and lowest within sawmills and panels. Supporting P2,proactive green marketers emphasise environmental issues in their marketingstrategies more than the other two groups. A significant difference was alsofound between reactive marketers and consumption marketers.

Decisions for marketing structures (environmental management)The dimension of environmental marketing structures can be described byproducing a one factor solution from the original four variables described inTable III (KMO ¼ 0:78 and Bartlett’s test p , 0:000). This one-dimensionalsolution explaining 49 percent of the total variance was named “Impact ofenvironmental issues in marketing structures”.

Values and philosophy of management is the aspect that is most influencedby environmental issues. About half of the respondents assessed the impact asstrong. Only 22 percent of the respondents thought that the impact has beenminor. The impact has been lowest with respect to distribution channels. Thiscould be interpreted to mean that companies do not easily make changes intheir distribution channels, but for some companies, environmental issues mayalso influence decisions concerning distribution channels. Divergenceregarding environmental emphasis in marketing strategies among countries,industry sectors and responsibility classification was examined by comparingthe means of factor score coefficients in a one-way ANOVA (Table XI).

Impact of environmental issues inmarketing structures

Mean F-prob. ,

CountryFinland 0.223Sweden 20.039 0.001Germany 0.147UK 20.340

Industry sectorPulp and paper 0.343Sawmills and panels 20.136Second. wood processing 20.055 0.005Marketing channels 20.019Paper buyers 20.054

Responsibility classificationProactive green marketers 0.234Reactive green marketers 20.094 0.001Consumption marketers 20.130

Table XI.Divergence ofenvironmental

marketingstructures among

countries andindustry sectors and

responsibilityclassification

Environmentalmarketing

planning

863

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 1

1:35

29

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

Results indicate that an environmental emphasis in marketing structures isstrongest among Finnish companies and lowest within the UK industry. Theimpact of environmental issues in the UK has been lower compared to anyother country. With respect to industry sectors, the impact of environmentalissues has been stronger within the pulp and paper industry compared tosawmills and secondary wood processing. The impact of environmental issueshas been stronger within proactive green marketers compared to the other twogroups. This result provides support for P2.

Decisions for environmental marketing functionsThe dimensions of environmental marketing functions can be described byusing factor analysis to produce three factors from the original 11 variables(Table IV) (KMO ¼ 0:73 and Bartlett’s test p , 0:000). This solution of threefactors explains 42.4 percent of the total variation in this set of variables.

The heaviest loadings in factor I were variables related to examination andconsideration of environmental issues and inviting input from environmentalgroups. It was therefore named “Environmental information input inmarketing planning“. Factor II was labelled “Belief in a price premium forenvironmentally friendly products” because of its strong relationship to price.Factor III relates to the impact of environmental issues on advertising,communication campaigns and personal contacts/selling. Thus, it was named“Impact of environmental issues in marketing communications“.

Very few respondents indicated that they never consider environmentalconcerns in strategic planning. Over half of the respondents reported doing italways or often. Over one-third of respondents reported carrying out customersurveys for marketing plans always or often. About half of the companiesexamine environmental information actively in their business decision making.Inviting input from environmental or consumer groups was clearly not ascommon. Less than half of the companies invite input from these groups atleast occasionally.

About 40 percent of the respondents estimated that the impact ofenvironmental issues has been strong both on advertising and on personalcontacts/selling. Many respondents said that environmental issues have oftencome up in informal discussions between supplier and customer rather than informal business documentation. Up to now, environmental issues seem to havehad relatively little effect on pricing. Half of respondents said that these issueshave had no impact at all. However, 15 percent estimated that they have hadsome or even a strong impact on pricing.

The results of the one-way ANOVA with the factor score coefficients(Table XII) indicate that Swedish companies are more active in environmentalinformation input than UK companies. Finnish companies were more inclined tobelieve in a price premium for environmentally friendly products thancompanies in other countries. The difference concerning emphasis on

EJM37,5/6

864

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 1

1:35

29

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

environmental issues in marketing communication was clear: the impact ofenvironmental issues on marketing communication has been strongest withinthe Finnish industry. The difference between German and UK companies wasalso significant. The pulp and paper industry was most active in environmentalinformation input and in environmental communication. Supporting P2,proactive green marketers are more active in environmental information inputcompared to reactive green marketers who scored even lower than consumptionmarketers. Reactive green marketers believe more in a price premium thanconsumption marketers. The impact of environmental issues in communicationsis stronger within proactive green marketers than consumption marketers.Pairwise comparison (Bonferroni, sig. level,0.05) also showed a difference ofp , 0.069 between proactive and reactive green marketers.

Relationships among values, marketing strategies, structures and functionsTable XIII provides a correlation matrix of business values, environmentalmarketing strategies, structures and functions according to the factor scores.

Results of the correlation examination provide support for P1. The highcorrelations between strategies and structures and the three dimensions offunctions suggest that an environmental emphasis in marketing strategies canbe seen in the marketing structures and functions of a company. Also, greenvalues concerning the social responsibility of companies correlates withenvironmental emphasis in strategic, structural and functional levels ofmarketing decisions. Correspondingly, a profitability orientation correlates

Environmentalinformation input inmarketing planning

Belief in a pricepremium

Impact ofenvironmental

issues incommunications

Mean F-prob. , Mean F-prob. , Mean F-prob. ,

CountryFinland 20.109 0.227 0.242Sweden 0.222 0.004 20.041 0.006 20.217 0.001Germany 0.108 20.039 0.104UK 20.207 20.195 20.281

Industry sectorPulp and paper 0.352 20.306 0.334Sawmills and panels 20.073 0.128 20.112Second. wood processing 20.026 0.006 0.086 0.001 20.031 0.001Marketing channels 20.118 0.175 20.303Paper buyers 20.150 20.218 0.163

Responsibility classificationProactive green marketers 0.153 0.045 0.188Reactive green marketers 20.106 0.042 0.090 0.023 20.039 0.004Consumption marketers 20.024 20.196 20.170

Table XII.Divergence inenvironmental

marketing functions

Environmentalmarketing

planning

865

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 1

1:35

29

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

Val

ueF

ac1

Val

ueF

ac2

Val

ueF

ac3

Str

aFac

1S

tru

cFac

1F

un

cFac

1F

un

cFac

2F

un

cFac

3

Red

irec

tion

ofcu

stom

ers

tow

ard

ssu

stai

nab

ilit

y(V

alu

eFac

1)1.

000

Pro

fita

bil

ity

and

cust

omer

sati

sfac

tion

orie

nt.

(Val

ueF

ac2)

0.02

21.

000

Fre

em

ark

ets

vs

gov

.b

alan

cin

g(V

alu

eFac

3)0.

046

20.091

1.00

0E

nv

.E

mp

has

isin

stra

teg

ies

(Str

aFac

1)0.241

20.

011

20.159

1.00

0Im

pac

tof

env

.Is

sues

inst

ruct

ure

s(S

tru

cFac

1)0.126

20.103

20.231

0.550

1.00

0E

nv

iron

men

tal

info

rmat

ion

inp

ut

(Fu

ncF

ac1)

0.05

62

0.05

12

0.114

0.417

0.520

1.00

0B

elie

fin

ap

rice

pre

miu

m(F

un

cFac

2)0.

063

0.02

40.

000

0.143

0.101

20.

003

1.00

0Im

pac

tof

env

.is

sues

inco

mm

un

ic.

(Fu

ncF

ac3)

0.132

20.108

20.113

0.486

0.420

0.127

0.01

21.

000

Note:

Cor

rela

tion

s:p,

0.05

inb

old

typ

e

Table XIII.Correlation matrixof marketingdimensions

EJM37,5/6

866

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 1

1:35

29

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

negatively with environmental marketing structures and functions.Additionally, belief in a price premium for environmentally friendly productsis in harmony with environmental marketing strategies.

Limitations of the studyComparability of the results between industry sectors surveyed is good eventhough respondents represent very different types of firms along the forestry-wood value chain. A total of 454 interviews in four European countries with acoverage along the value chain provides a substantial data set for conclusions.This is because operationalisations concerning environmental business valuesand environmental emphasis in marketing strategies, structures and functionsused in this study can be equally applied to any company or industry sector.Still, marketing of forest-based products is a common denominator amongrespondents.

Future research should be directed to a wider range of industries for testingthe nature and relationships of corporate social responsibility, environmentalmarketing strategies, structures and functions. Measurement of the nature androle of governmental balancing and CSR could be improved. In addition to self-appraisals from respondents used in this study, future research should enhancemeasurement validity by including independent measures of marketingstrategies, structures and functions. One example of such an independentmeasure, actual environmental arguments in print advertising, has beensuccessfully used by the authors (Karna et al., 2001).

Limitations to the analytical techniques used in this study refer to factoranalysis and reliability (generalisation) assessment. In this study, classicalCronbach Alpha coefficient was used to assess the scale reliability. Finn andKayande (1997) suggest that generalisation of the measurement over persons inthe population should be considered within modern generalizability theory (G-theory). Carrying out a two-stage study for maximising G-coefficient could befollowed in further studies. Second, factor analyses conducted in this study areexploratory in character and thus may impose structure that containsmeasurement error and a degree of incompleteness. However, for example, wefeel that the three-factor solution presented in Table I is acceptable even thoughvariance explained after extraction and rotation remains relatively low in thismaximum likelihood factor solution. Within this solution, the dimension of“free market orientation vs governmental balancing” could be distinguished inorder to test the model presented in Figure 1.

Summary and conclusionsThe study results show that most of the respondents emphasise environmentalissues in their values, marketing strategies, structures and functions. Aninteresting observation is that industry sectors closest to end-users emphasiseboth “redirecting towards sustainability” and “profitability orientation” in their

Environmentalmarketing

planning

867

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 1

1:35

29

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

values more than companies in the beginning of value chain. The impact ofenvironmental issues on marketing planning has been strongest amongFinnish and German companies and within the pulp and paper industry. Thisindicates that environmental marketing and CSR are becoming the norm atsome level but this development has been driven mostly by outside pressuresand CSR behaviour has been a genuine proactive strategic decision only for apart of the companies.

From the perspective of marketing theory, the interrelationships betweenvalues, strategies, structures and functions in marketing planning wereanalysed. Structures and functions are tools to implement strategies and logicalrelationships should exist between various planning levels. The results of thecorrelation analysis give evidence that green values, environmental marketingstrategies, structures and functions are logically connected to each other ashypothesised according to the model of environmental marketing used to guidethis study. This supports P1. For companies examined in this study,environmental marketing functions (e.g. green advertising or examiningenvironmental information) logically reflect environmental values andstrategic and structural level decisions. This suggests that the companiesmay not be at risk of being accused of “greenwashing”. However, thecorrelations could have been higher. Sophistication of integrating socialresponsibility and environmental issues into marketing planning could beimproved and the level of strategic decisions deeper if genuine environmentalresponsibility is regarded important. The necessity of credible marketingstrategies and structures behind environmental marketing functions is themost important lesson to be learned for marketers in all sectors.

Being socially responsible does not mean that a company must abandon itsprimary economic task. Nor does it mean that socially responsible companiescould not be as profitable as other less responsible companies. Socialresponsibility or environmental friendliness can also be competitive advantagefor proactive and innovative companies. The results of this empirical studyindicate that there are companies that feel “redirecting of customers towardssustainability” and “profitability orientation” are compatible. This attitude wasmost common among German companies. Marketers in all sectors mustrecognise the growing importance of social responsibility and designmarketing strategies that will allow the company to meet its responsibilitywithout sacrificing profitability.

Three types of companies were found in this study. Of the companies, 32percent were classified (Figure 3) as “proactive green marketers” (companiesemphasising pursuing sustainability but believing in free market system). Theresults show that “proactive green marketers” emphasise environmental issuesin their marketing planning more than traditional “consumption marketers” (26percent of sample), and “reactive green marketers” (42 percent of sample) whoemphasise pursuing sustainability under governmental balancing (compliance

EJM37,5/6

868

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 1

1:35

29

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

model). This supports P2 derived from the ideas by Porter and van der Linde(1995) and Miles and Covin (2000) who emphasise environmental performanceas a source of competitive advantage resulting from “innovations”, or adoptinga “strategic model” for environmental management. The result suggests thatthe direction of “new orientation for ecological marketing” proposed by Shethand Parvatiyar (1995) (see Figure 1) is incorrect and that their conceptualisationis too reliant on governmental interference.

We interpret these results to mean that the proactive green marketers are themost genuine group in implementing environmental marketing voluntarily(innovating) and seeking competitive advantage through environmentalfriendliness. Thus, we suggest that the example of these progressive companiesshould be the truly new marketing orientation, the direction towardssustainable development in business and society (Figure 3). However, this doesnot mean that governmental balancing is not needed. Apparently,governmental intervention and balancing contributes in redirection towardssustainability because it is driving the traditional consumption marketers tochange their values and practices. The result simply shows that theforerunners of sustainable development are voluntarily ahead of governmentalinterventions, and this allows an opportunity to gain competitive advantagethrough environmental friendliness. Government intervention appears to beneeded for the laggards but as companies evolve the need for governmentalintervention decreases and the truly new environmental marketing orientationcan be found from the direction of free market system (invisible hand). AsPorter and van der Linde (1995) suggest, companies must become moreproactive in defining new types of relationships with both regulators andenvironmentalists in order to gain competitive advantage and raised resourceproductivity.

Figure 3.Truly new orientation for

environmentalmarketing

Environmentalmarketing

planning

869

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 1

1:35

29

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

References

Anderberg, M.R. (1973), Cluster Analysis for Applications, Academic Press, New York, NY.

Ansoff, H.I. (1965), Corporate Strategy, Cox & Wyman Ltd, Reading.

Bagozzi, R.P. (Ed.) (1994), Principles of Marketing Research, Basil Blackwell Ltd, Cambridge, MA.

Banerjee, S.B. (1999), “Corporate environmentalism and the greening of strategic marketing”, inCharter, M. and Polonsky, M. (Eds), Greener Marketing – A Global Perspective on GreeningMarketing Practice, Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, pp. 16-40.

Carrol, B.A. (1999), “Corporate social responsibility: evolution of a definitional construct”,Business & Society, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 268-95.

Finn, A. and Kayande, U. (1997), “Reliability assessment and optimization of marketingmeasurement”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34, pp. 262-75.

Juslin, H. (1992), “Forest products marketing: a theoretical model and its’ empirical application.Case: the Finnish forest industry”, in Proceedings of IUFRO ALL Division 5 “ForestProducts” Conference, August 23-28, Nancy, pp. 793-803.

Juslin, H. (1994), “Integrating ecological issues in the strategic marketing planning”, in What isDetermining International Competitiveness in the Global Pulp and Paper Industry?,Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium, September 13-14, Seattle, Washington,DC, University of Washington College of Forest Resources, Centre for International Tradein Forest Products (CINTRAFOR), pp. 327-38.

Karna, J., Hansen, E., Juslin, H. and Ahonen, V. (2001), “Green advertising: greenwash or a truereflection of marketing strategy?”, Greener Management International, Vol. 33.

Kotler, P. (2000), Marketing Management: The Millenium Edition, Prentice-Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ.

Lewis-Beck, M.S. (Ed.) (1994), Factor Analysis and Related Techniques, Sage/Toppan, London.

McDonagh, P. and Prothero, A. (Eds) (1997), Green Management – A Reader, The Dryden Press,London.

Malhotra, N.K. (1993), Marketing Research – An Applied Orientation, Prentice-Hall InternationalEditions, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 857.

Mazarr, M.J. (1999), Global Trends 2005: An Owner’s Manual for the Next Decade, St Martin’sPress, New York, NY.

Miles, M.P. and Covin, J.G. (2000), “Environmental marketing: a source of reputational,competitve, and financial advantage”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 299-311.

Palazzi. M. and Starcher. G. (2000), “Corporate social responsibility and business success”,available at: www.ebbf.org/crswrd.htm (accessed October 2001).

Peattie, K. (1995), Environmental Marketing Management – Meeting the Green Challenge, PitmanPublishing, London.

Peattie, K. (1999), “Rethinking marketing – shifting to a greener paradigm”, in Charter, M. andPolonsky, M. (Eds), Greener Marketing – A Global Perspective on Greening MarketingPractice, Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, pp. 57-70.

Porter, M.E. and van der Linde, C. (1995), “Green and competitive: ending the stalemate”,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73 No. 5, pp. 120-34.

Pujari, D. and Wright, G. (1996), “Developing environmentally conscious product strategies: aqualitative study of selected companies in Germany and Britain”, Marketing Intelligence &Planning, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 19-29.

Quazi, A.M. and O’Brien, D. (2000), “An empirical test of a cross-national model of corporatesocial responsibility”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 25, pp. 33-51.

EJM37,5/6

870

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 1

1:35

29

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

Rametsteiner, E., Pajari, B. and Peck, T. (Eds) (1999), Potential Markets for Certified ForestProducts in Europe, Results of Extensive European Market Research Conducted in theContext of an EC-FAIR Research Project on SFM-Certification, EFI Proceedings No. 25,European Forest Institute, Joensuu.

Sheth, J. and Parvatiyar, A. (1995), “Ecological imperatives and the role of marketing”, inPolonsky, M. and Mintu-Wimsatt, A. (Eds), Environmental Marketing: Strategies, Practice,Theory and Research, The Haworth Press, New York, NY, pp. 3-20.

Shirley, R., Peters, M. and El-Ansary, A. (1981), Strategy and Policy Formation – AMultifunctional Orientation, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

Steineck. F. (1999), “Forest certification as a marketing tool for the Swedish forestry wood-chain”,MSc thesis, Department of Forest Economics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki.

Wehrmeyer, M. (1999), “Reviewing corporate environmental strategy”, in Charter, M. andPolonsky, M. (Eds), Greener Marketing – A Global Perspective on Greening MarketingPractice, Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, pp. 41-56.

(The) World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2002), available at: www.wbcsd.ch/

Environmentalmarketing

planning

871

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 1

1:35

29

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

This article has been cited by:

1. Karolos-Konstantinos Papadas, George J. Avlonitis, Marylyn Carrigan. 2017. Green marketingorientation: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. Journal of Business Research 80, 236-246.[Crossref]

2. Marcello Risitano, Francesco Parola, Alessandra Turi, Marco Ferretti. 2017. Green practices in portauthority management: A multiple case study. MERCATI & COMPETITIVITÀ :3, 127-145. [Crossref]

3. Philip R. Walsh, Rachel Dodds. 2017. Measuring the Choice of Environmental Sustainability Strategiesin Creating a Competitive Advantage. Business Strategy and the Environment 26:5, 672-687. [Crossref]

4. Nora Hänninen, Heikki Karjaluoto. 2017. Environmental values and customer-perceived value inindustrial supplier relationships. Journal of Cleaner Production 156, 604-613. [Crossref]

5. Sheryn D. Pitman, Christopher B. Daniels, Paul C. Sutton. 2017. Ecological literacy and psychographics:lifestyle contributors to ecological knowledge and understanding. International Journal of SustainableDevelopment & World Ecology 11, 1-14. [Crossref]

6. Grażyna Śmigielska, Renata Oczkowska. 2017. Retailers’ Responsibility towards Consumers and KeyDrivers of Their Development in Poland. Administrative Sciences 7:1, 3. [Crossref]

7. Anna Sadovnikova, Ashish Pujari. 2017. The effect of green partnerships on firm value. Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science 45:2, 251-267. [Crossref]

8. KumarPrashant, Prashant Kumar. 2017. Intents of green advertisements. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketingand Logistics 29:1, 70-79. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

9. Johan Jansson, Jonas Nilsson, Frida Modig, Gabriella Hed Vall. 2017. Commitment to Sustainability inSmall and Medium-Sized Enterprises: The Influence of Strategic Orientations and Management Values.Business Strategy and the Environment 26:1, 69-83. [Crossref]

10. Mark Anthony Camilleri. Case Study 5: Closing the Loop of the Circular Economy for CorporateSustainability and Responsibility 175-190. [Crossref]

11. Lídia Simão, Ana Lisboa. 2017. Green Marketing and Green Brand – The Toyota Case. ProcediaManufacturing 12, 183-194. [Crossref]

12. Nora Mustonen, Heikki Karjaluoto, Chanaka Jayawardhena. 2016. Customer Environmental Values andTheir Contribution to Loyalty in Industrial Markets. Business Strategy and the Environment 25:7, 512-528.[Crossref]

13. HosseiniMaryam, Maryam Hosseini, OwliaMohammad Saleh, Mohammad Saleh Owlia. 2016. Designinga model for measuring and analyzing the relational capital using factor analysis. Journal of IntellectualCapital 17:4, 734-757. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

14. Kamonthip Maichum, Surakiat Parichatnon, Ke-Chung Peng. 2016. Application of the Extended Theoryof Planned Behavior Model to Investigate Purchase Intention of Green Products among Thai Consumers.Sustainability 8:10, 1077. [Crossref]

15. Yang Sun, Tony C. Garrett, Kyung Hoon Kim. 2016. Do Confucian principles enhance sustainablemarketing and customer equity?. Journal of Business Research 69:9, 3772-3779. [Crossref]

16. Marc Journeault, Yves De Rongé, Jean-François Henri. 2016. Levers of eco-control and competitiveenvironmental strategy. The British Accounting Review 48:3, 316-340. [Crossref]

17. Pantelitsa P. Eteokleous, Leonidas C. Leonidou, Constantine S. Katsikeas. 2016. Corporate socialresponsibility in international marketing: review, assessment, and future research. International MarketingReview 33:4, 580-624. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 1

1:35

29

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

18. Irma Chacón Páez, Ana C. Pinzón Vargas, Leonardo Ortegón Cortázar, Sandra Patricia Rojas Berrio.2016. Alcance y gestión de la huella de carbono como elemento dinamizador del branding por parte deempresas que implementan estas prácticas ambientales en Colombia. Estudios Gerenciales 32:140, 278-289.[Crossref]

19. Ilde Luiz Borella, Margareth Rodrigues de Carvalho Borella. 2016. Environmental Impact and SustainableDevelopment: An Analysis in the Context of Standards ISO 9001, ISO 14001, and OHSAS 18001.Environmental Quality Management 25:3, 67-83. [Crossref]

20. Justin Paul, Ashwin Modi, Jayesh Patel. 2016. Predicting green product consumption using theory ofplanned behavior and reasoned action. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 29, 123-134. [Crossref]

21. Christopher Groening, Vamsi K. Kanuri. 2016. Investor Reactions to Concurrent Positive and NegativeStakeholder News. Journal of Business Ethics . [Crossref]

22. Yang Sun, Eunju Ko. 2016. Influence of sustainable marketing activities on customer equity. Journal ofGlobal Scholars of Marketing Science 26:3, 270. [Crossref]

23. Agnė Gadeikienė, Jūratė Banytė. 2015. Discourse on Corporate Social Responsibility in the Context ofMarketing Scientific Research. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 213, 702-708. [Crossref]

24. Sandro Sillani, Federico Nassivera. 2015. Consumer behavior in choice of minimally processed vegetablesand implications for marketing strategies. Trends in Food Science & Technology 46:2, 339-345. [Crossref]

25. Morad Khaled Radaideh, Anwar Nahar Al Azam. 2015. The application of social responsibility inJordanian banks and its impact on the competitive feature from the point of view of banks’ employees.Arab Economic and Business Journal 10:2, 112-129. [Crossref]

26. Margareth Rodrigues de Carvalho Borella, Paulo Fernando Pinto Barcellos. 2015. Pro-environmentalmarketing and sustainable products in compliance with regulation: a study in the south of Brazil.International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 22:4, 324-334. [Crossref]

27. Mohd Rizaimy Shaharudin, Suhaiza Zailani, Keah Choon Tan. 2015. Barriers to product returns andrecovery management in a developing country: investigation using multiple methods. Journal of CleanerProduction 96, 220-232. [Crossref]

28. Federico Nassivera, Sandro Sillani. 2015. Consumer perceptions and motivations in choice of minimallyprocessed vegetables. British Food Journal 117:3, 970-986. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

29. Kai Foerstl, Arash Azadegan, Thomas Leppelt, Evi Hartmann. 2015. Drivers of Supplier Sustainability:Moving Beyond Compliance to Commitment. Journal of Supply Chain Management 51:1, 67-92.[Crossref]

30. 전전전, 전전전. 2014. The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility Motivation and Performance onEmployees' Relationship Quality and Job Satisfaction in the Channel Context. Journal of Distribution andManagement Research 17:6, 107-119. [Crossref]

31. Hardeep Chahal, Ramesh Dangwal, Swati Raina. 2014. Antecedents and consequences of strategic greenmarketing orientation. Journal of Global Responsibility 5:2, 338-362. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

32. Hardeep Chahal, Ramesh Dangwal, Swati Raina. 2014. Conceptualisation, development and validationof green marketing orientation (GMO) of SMEs in India. Journal of Global Responsibility 5:2, 312-337.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

33. Pierre McDonagh, Andrea Prothero. 2014. Sustainability marketing research: past, present and future.Journal of Marketing Management 30:11-12, 1186-1219. [Crossref]

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 1

1:35

29

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

34. Yang Sun, Kyung Hoon Kim, Juran Kim. 2014. Examining relationships among sustainable orientation,perceived sustainable marketing performance, and customer equity in fast fashion industry. Journal ofGlobal Fashion Marketing 5:1, 74-86. [Crossref]

35. Timothy B. Kellison, Yu Kyoum Kim. 2014. Marketing Pro-Environmental Venues in Professional Sport:Planting Seeds of Change among Existing and Prospective Consumers. Journal of Sport Management 28:1,34-48. [Crossref]

36. Vinod Kumar, Zillur Rahman, A.A. Kazmi. 2013. Sustainability Marketing Strategy: An Analysis ofRecent Literature. Global Business Review 14:4, 601-625. [Crossref]

37. Defeng Yang, Ping Zhao, Runping Lou, Haiying Wei. 2013. Environmental marketing strategy effectson market-based assets. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 24:5-6, 707-718. [Crossref]

38. HyoungGil Kim, Junghee Kim. 2013. A Case Study on the Green Marketing of the Jeju Special SelfGoverning Province Development Corp. Journal of Consumption Culture 16:2, 291-313. [Crossref]

39. Susan M. Tinnish, Sapna Mehta Mangal. 2012. Sustainable Event Marketing in the MICE Industry: ATheoretical Framework. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism 13:4, 227-249. [Crossref]

40. Katherine Taken Smith, Tracy R. Brower. 2012. Longitudinal study of green marketing strategies thatinfluence Millennials. Journal of Strategic Marketing 20:6, 535-551. [Crossref]

41. Anne Toppinen, Ning Li, Anni Tuppura, Ying Xiong. 2012. Corporate Responsibility and StrategicGroups in the Forest-based Industry: Exploratory Analysis based on the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)Framework. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 19:4, 191-205. [Crossref]

42. Constantine Lymperopoulos, Ioannis E Chaniotakis, Magdalini Soureli. 2012. A model of green bankmarketing. Journal of Financial Services Marketing 17:2, 177-186. [Crossref]

43. A.N. Sarkar. 2012. Green Branding and Eco-innovations for Evolving a Sustainable Green MarketingStrategy. Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation 8:1, 39-58. [Crossref]

44. Kevin D. Barber, Roger Beach, Judy Zolkiewski. 2012. Environmental sustainability: a value cycle researchagenda. Production Planning & Control 23:2-3, 105-119. [Crossref]

45. Mohammed El Dief, Xavier Font. 2012. Determinants of Environmental Management in the Red SeaHotels. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 36:1, 115-137. [Crossref]

46. Jon F. Kirchoff, Chris Koch, Bridget Satinover Nichols. 2011. Stakeholder perceptions of green marketing:the effect of demand and supply integration. International Journal of Physical Distribution & LogisticsManagement 41:7, 684-696. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

47. Isaac Cheah, Ian Phau. 2011. Attitudes towards environmentally friendly products. Marketing Intelligence& Planning 29:5, 452-472. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

48. Elena Fraj, Eva Martínez, Jorge Matute. 2011. Green marketing strategy and the firm's performance: themoderating role of environmental culture. Journal of Strategic Marketing 19:4, 339-355. [Crossref]

49. Soo-Kyoung Ahn, Eun-Jeong Ryou. 2011. Corporate Social Responsibility -Contents Analysis of KoreanFashion Corporations Websites-. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles 35:4, 455-465.[Crossref]

50. Satyendra Singh, Demetris Vrontis, Alkis Thrassou. 2011. Green Marketing and Consumer Behavior:The Case of Gasoline Products. Journal of Transnational Management 16:2, 84-106. [Crossref]

51. Constantinos N. Leonidou, Leonidas C. Leonidou. 2011. Research into environmental marketing/management: a bibliographic analysis. European Journal of Marketing 45:1/2, 68-103. [Abstract] [FullText] [PDF]

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 1

1:35

29

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

52. N. Li, A. Toppinen. 2011. Corporate responsibility and sustainable competitive advantage in forest-basedindustry: Complementary or conflicting goals?. Forest Policy and Economics 13:2, 113-123. [Crossref]

53. David J. Closs, Cheri Speier, Nathan Meacham. 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. [Crossref]

54. Ahmed Shahriar Ferdous. 2010. Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior to Explain MarketingManagers’ Perspectives on Sustainable Marketing. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 22:4,313-325. [Crossref]

55. Molly Inhofe Rapert, Christopher Newman, Seong-Yeon Park, Eun Mi Lee. 2010. Seeking a BetterPlace: Sustainability in the CPG Industry. Journal of Global Academy of Marketing Science 20:2, 199-207.[Crossref]

56. Mohammed El Dief, Xavier Font. 2010. The determinants of hotels' marketing managers' green marketingbehaviour. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18:2, 157-174. [Crossref]

57. Som Sekhar Bhattacharyya. 2010. Exploring the concept of strategic corporate social responsibility for anintegrated perspective. European Business Review 22:1, 82-101. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

58. Çiğdem Apaydın, Başak Ercan. 2010. A structural equation model analysis of Turkish school managers’views on social responsibility. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 2:2, 5590-5598. [Crossref]

59. Ulla Kotonen. 2009. Formal corporate social responsibility reporting in Finnish listed companies. Journalof Applied Accounting Research 10:3, 176-207. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

60. Valerie L. Vaccaro. 2009. B2B green marketing and innovation theory for competitive advantage. Journalof Systems and Information Technology 11:4, 315-330. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

61. Kathryn Knowles, Angela Espinosa. 2009. Towards an Holistic Framework for Environmental Change:The Role of Normative Behaviour and Informal Networking to Enhance Sustainable Business Practices.Systemic Practice and Action Research 22:4, 275-291. [Crossref]

62. Elena Fraj-Andrés, Eva Martinez-Salinas, Jorge Matute-Vallejo. 2009. A Multidimensional Approach tothe Influence of Environmental Marketing and Orientation on the Firm’s Organizational Performance.Journal of Business Ethics 88:2, 263-286. [Crossref]

63. Berenice Maldonado-Hernández, Eva Conraud-Koellner, Luis Arturo Rivas-Tovar. 2008. Evaluation ofthe programs of environmental marketing in the Metropolitan Zone of the city of Mexico. InternationalReview on Public and Nonprofit Marketing 5:2, 141-166. [Crossref]

64. Apisit Chattananon, Meredith Lawley, Numchai Supparerkchaisakul, Lackana Leelayouthayothin. 2008.Impacts of a Thai cause‐related marketing program on corporate image. International Journal of EmergingMarkets 3:4, 348-363. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

65. Terje I. Vaaland, Morten Heide, Kjell Grønhaug. 2008. Corporate social responsibility: investigatingtheory and research in the marketing context. European Journal of Marketing 42:9/10, 927-953. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

66. Som Sekhar Bhattacharyya, Arunditya Sahay, Ashok Pratap Arora, Abha Chaturvedi. 2008. A toolkit fordesigning firm level strategic corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives. Social Responsibility Journal4:3, 265-282. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

67. Mohd Rafi Yaacob, Loong Wong. 2007. Stakeholders' Activisms: Indigenous Peoples' of SarawakResistance against the State Government and Corporations. Social Responsibility Journal 3:2, 39-51.[Abstract] [PDF]

68. Mohamed M. Mostafa. 2007. A hierarchical analysis of the green consciousness of the Egyptian consumer.Psychology and Marketing 24:5, 445-473. [Crossref]

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 1

1:35

29

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)

69. Dan F. Ofori, Robert E. Hinson. 2007. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) perspectives of leading firmsin Ghana. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society 7:2, 178-193. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

70. Toshiaki Owari, Heikki Juslin, Arto Rummukainen, Tetsuhiko Yoshimura. 2006. Strategies, functionsand benefits of forest certification in wood products marketing: Perspectives of Finnish suppliers. ForestPolicy and Economics 9:4, 380-391. [Crossref]

71. Adel I. El‐Ansary. 2006. Marketing strategy: taxonomy and frameworks. European Business Review 18:4,266-293. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

72. LINDA S. MUNILLA, MORGAN P. MILES. 2005. The Corporate Social Responsibility Continuumas a Component of Stakeholder Theory. Business and Society Review 110:4, 371-387. [Crossref]

73. HUSEYIN RIDVAN YURTSEVEN, DILEK DONMEZ. 2004. Environmental Sensibility: TheComparative Research Between the Local Community and Managers of the Hospitality Industry inGokceada (Imbros). Anatolia 15:1, 57-68. [Crossref]

74. Ajit Kumar Shukla. Green Marketing in India: 168-177. [Crossref]75. Özlem Alikılıç. Broadening the Concept of Green Marketing: 86-109. [Crossref]76. Ceren Altuntaş Vural. Green Marketing: 63-85. [Crossref]77. Shahazadi Begum Shaik. Green Marketing: 473-500. [Crossref]78. Özge Kirezli, Melis Kaytaz Yiğit. Why Do Companies Engage in Green Marketing? 123-153. [Crossref]

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

BE

, Mis

s C

lair

e Si

egel

At 1

1:35

29

Oct

ober

201

7 (P

T)