2008 research in marketing

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, a review of eye-tracking research in marketing.

Review of Marketing Research

ISBN : 978-0-7656-2092-7 , eISBN : 978-0-85724-726-1

Publication date: 1 January 2008

Wedel, M. and Pieters, R. (2008), "A Review of Eye-Tracking Research in Marketing", Malhotra, N.K. (Ed.) Review of Marketing Research ( Review of Marketing Research, Vol. 4 ), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 123-147. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1548-6435(2008)0000004009

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2008, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

We’re listening — tell us what you think

Something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

The structure of sustainability research in marketing, 1958–2008: a basis for future research opportunities

• Published: 01 September 2010
• Volume 39 , pages 55–70, ( 2011 )

Cite this article

• Brian R. Chabowski 1 ,
• Jeannette A. Mena 2 &
• Tracy L. Gonzalez-Padron 3  

9696 Accesses

335 Citations

Explore all metrics

Recent changes in the business environment have prompted marketing scholars to pay particular attention to sustainability as a topic of inquiry. Despite the progress made in the study of sustainability, there is a paucity of research on the topic in premier marketing journals. To address this issue, we focus on marketing-related journals and assess the intellectual structure of sustainability research in detail. Drawing on social network theory, we perform an extensive co-citation analysis using multidimensional scaling to examine 76,342 citations made in 1,320 sustainability-focused articles from 36 journals over 51 years (1958–2008). This study specifies that the topics of citizenship behavior, stakeholder theory, corporate performance, and the triple bottom line are integral sustainability research areas. In addition, the results indicate five required topics for examining sustainability in the marketing context: external-internal focus, social-environmental emphasis, legal-ethical-discretionary intent, marketing assets, and financial performance. Supported by the capabilities-based resource perspective, the sustainability-focused typology and framework advanced provide directed structure for future research.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

The future of social media in marketing

Social media marketing strategy: definition, conceptualization, taxonomy, validation, and future agenda

Online influencer marketing

Abela, A. V., & Murphy, P. E. (2008). Marketing with integrity: ethics and the service-dominant logic for marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1), 39–53.

Article   Google Scholar  

Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: a multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32 (3), 836–863.

Google Scholar  

Alba, R. D., & Moore, G. (1983). Elite social circles. In R. S. Burt & M. J. Minor (Eds.), Applied network analysis (pp. 245–261). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Arora, N., & Henderson, T. (2007). Embedded premium promotion: why it works and how to make it more effective. Marketing Science, 26 (4), 514–531.

Arya, B., & Zhang, G. (2009). Institutional reforms and investor reactions to CSR announcements: evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Management Studies, 46 (7), 1089–1112.

Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., & Hatfield, J. D. (1985). An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 28 (2), 446–463.

Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. (2005). Environmental marketing strategy and firm performance: effects on new product performance and market share. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33 (4), 461–475.

Banerjee, S. B., Iyer, E. S., & Kashyap, R. K. (2003). Corporate environmentalism: antecedents and influence of industry type. Journal of Marketing, 67 (2), 106–122.

Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: a longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 26 (3), 197–218.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99–120.

Barone, M. J., Miyazaki, A. D., & Taylor, K. A. (2000). The influence of cause-related marketing on consumer choice: does one good turn deserve another? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (2), 248–262.

Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: a process model of sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 33 (1), 122–136.

Berens, G., van Riel, C. B. M., & van Bruggen, G. H. (2005). Corporate associations and consumer product responses: the moderating role of corporate brand dominance. Journal of Marketing, 69 (3), 35–48.

Bhattacharya, C. B., Sen, S., & Korschun, D. (2008). Using corporate social responsibility to win the war for talent. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49 (2), 37–44.

Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323 (5916), 892–895.

Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61 (1), 68–84.

Buehler, V. M., & Shetty, Y. K. (1974). Motivations for corporate social action. Academy of Management Journal, 17 (4), 767–771.

Burrell, Q. L. (2002). Will this paper ever be cited? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53 (3), 232–235.

Burt, R. S. (1980). Models of network structure. Annual Review of Sociology, 6 (1), 79–141.

Burt, R. S. (1983). Network data from archival data. In R. S. Burt & M. J. Minor (Eds.), Applied network analysis (pp. 158–174). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Buysse, K., & Verbeke, A. (2003). Proactive environmental strategies: a stakeholder management perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 24 (5), 453–470.

Capron, L., & Hulland, J. (1999). Redeployment of brands, sales forces, and general marketing management expertise following horizontal acquisitions: a resource-based view. Journal of Marketing, 63 (2), 41–54.

Carley, K. M. (1999). On the evolution of social and organizational networks. In S. B. Bacharach (Ed.), Research in the sociology of organizations (pp. 3–30). Stanford: JAI Press Inc.

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

Chabowski, B. R., Hult, G. T. M., Kiyak, T., & Mena, J. A. (2010). The structure of JIBS ’s social network and the relevance of intra-country variation: a typology for future research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41 (5), 925–934.

Choi, J., & Wang, H. (2009). Stakeholder relations and the persistence of corporate financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30 (8), 895–907.

Christmann, P. (2000). Effects of “best practices” of environmental management on cost advantage: The role of complementary assets. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (4), 663–680.

Christmann, P. (2004). Multinational companies and the natural environment: determinants of global environmental policy standardization. Academy of Management Journal, 47 (5), 747–760.

Christmann, P., & Taylor, G. (2006). Firm self-regulation through international certifiable standards: determinants of symbolic versus substantive implementation. Journal of International Business Studies, 37 (6), 863–878.

Cornelius, B., Landström, H., & Persson, O. (2006). Entrepreneurial studies: the dynamic research front of a developing science. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 30 (3), 375–398.

Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2006). Who cares about corruption? Journal of International Business Studies, 37 (6), 807–822.

Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58 (4), 37–52.

Day, G. S., & Wensley, R. (1988). Assessing advantage: a framework for diagnosing competitive superiority. Journal of Marketing, 52 (2), 1–20.

Dean, D. H. (2003). Consumer perception of corporate donations: effects of company reputation for social responsibility and type of donation. Journal of Advertising, 32 (4), 91–102.

Den Hond, F., & De Bakker, F. G. A. (2007). Ideologically motivated activism: how activist groups influence corporate social change activities. Academy of Management Review, 32 (3), 901–924.

Drumwright, M. E. (1994). Socially responsible organizational buying: environmental concern as a noneconomic buying criterion. Journal of Marketing, 58 (3), 1–19.

Drumwright, M. E. (1996). Company advertising with a social dimension: the role of noneconomic criteria. Journal of Marketing, 60 (4), 71–87.

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: the role of competitive positioning. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24 (3), 224–241.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21 (10/11), 1105–1121.

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

Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (2), 147–157.

Engardio, P., Capell, K., Carey, J., & Hall, K. (2007). Beyond the green corporation: Imagine a world in which eco-friendly and socially responsible practices actually help a company’s bottom line. It’s closer than you think. Businessweek , (January 29), 50.

Ferrell, O. C., & Gresham, L. G. (1985). A contingency framework for understanding ethical decision making in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 49 (3), 87–96.

Foote, S. B. (1984). Corporate responsibility in a changing legal environment. California Management Review, 26 (3), 217–228.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach . Boston: Pitman.

Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Funk, K. (2003). Sustainability and performance. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44 (2), 65–70.

Garfield, E. (1979). Citation indexing: Its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities . New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Godfrey, P. C., Merrill, C. B., & Hansen, J. M. (2009). The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: an empirical test of the risk management hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 30 (4), 425–445.

Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (3), 472–482.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6), 1360–1380.

Handelman, J. M., & Arnold, S. J. (1999). The role of marketing actions with a social dimension: appeals to the institutional environment. Journal of Marketing, 63 (3), 33–48.

Harrison, J. S., Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2010). Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31 (1), 58–74.

Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20 (4), 986–1014.

Hart, S. L. (1997). Beyond greening: strategies for a sustainable world. Harvard Business Review, 75 (1), 66–76.

Heugens, P. P. M. A. R., Kaptein, M., & van Oosterhout, J. H. (2008). Contracts to communities: a processual model of organizational virtue. Journal of Management Studies, 45 (1), 100–121.

Hull, C. E., & Rothenberg, S. (2008). Firm performance: the interactions of corporate social performance with innovation and industry differentiation. Strategic Management Journal, 29 (7), 781–789.

Hult, G. T. M., & Chabowski, B. R. (2008). Sourcing research as an intellectual network of ideas. Decision Sciences, 39 (3), 323–335.

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

Husted, B. W., & Allen, D. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in the multinational enterprise: strategic and institutional approaches. Journal of International Business Studies, 37 (6), 838–849.

Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57 (3), 53–70.

Jayachandran, S., Hewett, K., & Kaufman, P. (2004). Customer response capability in a sense-and-respond era: the role of customer knowledge process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32 (3), 219–233.

Kaptein, M. (2008). Developing a measure of unethical behavior in the workplace: a stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management, 34 (5), 978–1008.

King, B. G., & Soule, S. A. (2007). Social movements as extra-institutional entrepreneurs: the effect of protests on stock price returns. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52 (3), 413–442.

Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54 (2), 1–18.

Krishna, A., & Rajan, U. (2009). Cause marketing: spillover effects of cause-related products in a product portfolio. Management Science, 55 (9), 1469–1485.

Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kwok, C. C. Y., & Tadesse, S. (2006). The MNC as an agent of change for host-country institutions: FDI and corruption. Journal of International Business Studies, 37 (6), 767–785.

Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34 (6), 1152–1189.

Lash, J., & Wellington, F. (2007). Competitive advantage on a warming planet. Harvard Business Review, 85 (3), 94–102.

Li, T., & Calantone, R. J. (1998). The impact of market knowledge competence on new product advantage: conceptualization and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62 (4), 13–29.

Lichtenstein, D. R., Drumwright, M. E., & Braig, B. M. (2004). The effect of corporate social responsibility on customer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits. Journal of Marketing, 68 (4), 16–32.

Lincoln, J. R. (1982). Intra- (and inter-) organizational networks. In S. B. Bacharach (Ed.), Research in the sociology of organizations (pp. 1–38). Greenwich: JAI Press Inc.

Lockwood, C. (2006). Building the green way. Harvard Business Review, 84 (6), 129–137.

Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing, 70 (4), 1–18.

Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2009). The debate over doing good: corporate social performance, strategic marketing levers, and firm-idiosyncratic risk. Journal of Marketing, 73 (6), 198–213.

Luo, X., Sivakumar, K., & Liu, S. S. (2005). Globalization, marketing resources, and performance: evidence from China. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33 (1), 50–65.

Luo, Y. (2006). Political behavior, social responsibility, and perceived corruption. Journal of International Business Studies, 37 (6), 747–766.

Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and marketing: an integrative framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32 (1), 3–19.

Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. C., & Hult, G. T. M. (1999). Corporate citizenship: cultural antecedents and business benefits. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27 (4), 455–469.

Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30 (1), 166–179.

Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: a conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33 (2), 404–424.

Maxham, J. G., III, Netemeyer, R. G., & Lichtenstein, D. R. (2008). The retail value chain: linking employee perceptions to employee performance, customer evaluations, and store performance. Marketing Science, 27 (2), 147–167.

McCain, K. W. (1986). Cocited author mapping as a valid representation of intellectual structure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 37 (3), 111–122.

McCain, K. W. (1990). Mapping authors in intellectual space: a technical overview. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41 (6), 433–443.

Menguc, B., & Ozanne, L. K. (2005). Challenges of the “green imperative”: a natural resource-based approach to the environmental orientation-business performance relationship. Journal of Business Research, 58 (4), 430–438.

Menguc, B., & Auh, S. (2006). Creating a firm-level dynamic capability through capitalizing on market orientation and innovativeness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (1), 63–73.

Menon, A., & Menon, A. (1997). Enviropreneurial marketing strategy: the emergence of corporate environmentalism as market strategy. Journal of Marketing, 61 (1), 51–67.

Mizruchi, M. S. (1994). Social network analysis: recent achievements and current controversies. Acta Sociologica, 37 (4), 329–343.

Morgan, F. W. (1988). Tampered goods: legal developments and marketing guidelines. Journal of Marketing, 52 (2), 86–96.

Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54 (4), 20–35.

Nehrt, C. (1998). Maintainability of first mover advantages when environmental regulations differ between countries. Academy of Management Review, 23 (1), 77–97.

Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C. K., & Rangaswami, M. R. (2009). Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harvard Business Review, 87 (9), 56–64.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective . New York: Harper & Row.

Pieters, R., Baumgartner, H., Vermunt, J., & Bijmolt, T. (1999). Importance and similarity in the evolving citation network of the International Journal of Research in Marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 16 (2), 113–127.

Ramos-Rodríguez, A.-R., & Ruíz-Navarro, J. (2004). Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: a bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980–2000. Strategic Management Journal, 25 (10), 981–1004.

Reinhardt, F. L. (1999). Bringing the environment down to earth. Harvard Business Review, 77 (4), 149–158.

Robin, D. P., & Reidenbach, R. E. (1987). Social responsibility, ethics, and marketing strategy: closing the gap between concept and application. Journal of Marketing, 51 (1), 44–58.

Rothenberg, S. (2007). Environmental managers as institutional entrepreneurs: the influence of institutional and technical pressures on waste management. Journal of Business Research, 60 (7), 749–757.

Ruf, B. M., Muralidhar, K., & Paul, K. (1998). The development of a systematic, aggregate measure of corporate social performance. Journal of Management, 24 (1), 119–133.

Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40 (3), 534–559.

Russo, M. V., & Harrison, N. S. (2005). Organizational design and environmental performance: clues from the electronics industry. Academy of Management Journal, 48 (4), 582–593.

Rust, R. T., Ambler, T., Carpenter, G. S., Kumar, V., & Srivastava, R. K. (2004). Measuring marketing productivity: current knowledge and future directions. Journal of Marketing, 68 (4), 76–89.

Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32 (4), 1096–1120.

Scott, J. (1991). Social network analysis: A handbook . Newbury Park: Sage Publications, Inc.

Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (2), 225–243.

Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, D. (2006). The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: a field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (2), 158–166.

Sharfman, M. P., & Fernando, C. S. (2008). Environmental risk management and the cost of capital. Strategic Management Journal, 29 (6), 569–592.

Sharma, A., Iyer, G. R., Mehrotra, A., & Krishnan, R. (2010). Sustainability and business-to-business marketing: a framework and implications. Industrial Marketing Management, 39 (2), 330–341.

Simmons, C. J., & Becker-Olsen, K. L. (2006). Achieving marketing objectives through social sponsorships. Journal of Marketing, 70 (4), 154–169.

Siomkos, G. J. (1999). On achieving exoneration after a product safety indsutrial crisis. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 14 (1), 17–29.

Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing, 59 (3), 63–74.

Small, H. (1999). Visualizing science by citation mapping. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50 (9), 799–813.

Srivastava, R. K., Shervani, T. A., & Fahey, L. (1998). Market-based assets and shareholder value: a framework for analysis. Journal of Marketing, 62 (1), 2–18.

Srivastava, R. K., Shervani, T. A., & Fahey, L. (1999). Marketing, business processes, and shareholder value: an organizationally embedded view of marketing activities and the discipline of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 63 (4), 168–179.

Strike, V. M., Gao, J., & Bansal, P. (2006). Being good while being bad: social responsibility and the international diversification of US firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 37 (6), 850–862.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (7), 509–533.

Tichy, N., & Fombrun, C. (1979). Network analysis in organizational settings. Human Relations, 32 (11), 923–965.

Tichy, N. M., Tushman, M. L., & Fombrun, C. (1979). Social network analysis for organizations. Academy of Management Review, 4 (4), 507–519.

Tse, A. C. B. (1999). Factors affecting consumer perceptions on product safety. European Journal of Marketing, 33 (9/10), 911–925.

Varadarajan, P. R. (2010). Strategic marketing and marketing strategy: domain, definition, fundamental issues and foundational premises. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38 (2), 119–140.

Varadarajan, P. R., & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-related marketing: a coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Marketing, 52 (3), 58–74.

Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (4), 303–319.

Waldman, D. A., Siegel, D. S., & Javidan, M. (2006). Components of CEO transformational leadership and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management Studies, 43 (8), 1703–1725.

Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Weitzel, U., & Berns, S. (2006). Cross-border takeovers, corruption, and related aspects of governance. Journal of International Business Studies, 37 (6), 786–806.

Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16 (4), 691–718.

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

Yadav, M. S. (2010). The decline of conceptual articles and implications for knowledge development. Journal of Marketing, 74 (1), 1–19.

Yoon, Y., Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Bozok, B. (2006). Drawing inferences about others on the basis of corporate associations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (2), 167–173.

Zhou, K. Z., Yim, C. K., & Tse, D. K. (2005). The effects of strategic orientations on technology- and market-based breakthrough innovations. Journal of Marketing, 69 (2), 42–60.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the editor and reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments, David Cohen for his tireless coding efforts, and Anne Hoekman for her copy-editing suggestions.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Management and Marketing Department, The University of Tulsa, The Collins College of Business, 800 S. Tucker Dr., Tulsa, OK, 74104, USA

Brian R. Chabowski

Department of Marketing, The University of Mississippi, School of Business Administration, University, MS, 38677, USA

Jeannette A. Mena

Marketing, Strategy, and International Business Department, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, College of Business and Administration, 1420 Austin Bluffs Pkwy, Colorado Springs, CO, 80918, USA

Tracy L. Gonzalez-Padron

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian R. Chabowski .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Chabowski, B.R., Mena, J.A. & Gonzalez-Padron, T.L. The structure of sustainability research in marketing, 1958–2008: a basis for future research opportunities. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 39 , 55–70 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0212-7

Download citation

Received : 01 January 2010

Accepted : 22 July 2010

Published : 01 September 2010

Issue Date : February 2011

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0212-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Sustainability
• Multidimensional scaling
• Intellectual structure
• Longitudinal analysis
• Triple bottom line
• Corporate responsibility
• Corporate social responsibility
• Corporate environmental responsibility
• Corporate social performance
• Corporate environmental performance
• Marketing-finance interface
• Bibliometric analysis
• Social network theory
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Marketing Your Way Through a Recession

• Brands that increase advertising during a downturn can improve market share and return on investment.
• Early-buy allowances, extended financing, and generous return policies motivate distributors to stock your full product line.
• In tough times, price cuts attract more consumer support than promotions.
• CEOs must spend more time with customers and employees.

Editor's Note: Harvard Business School professor John Quelch writes a blog on marketing issues, called Marketing Know: How, for Harvard Business Online . It is reprinted on HBS Working Knowledge .

The signs of an imminent recession are all around us. The spillover from the subprime mortgage crisis is weakening both consumer confidence and the consumer spending—much of it on credit—that has been buoying the U.S. economy.

Companies should bear eight factors in mind when making their marketing plans for 2008 and 2009:

1. Research the customer. Instead of cutting the market research budget, you need to know more than ever how consumers are redefining value and responding to the recession. Price elasticity curves are changing. Consumers take more time searching for durable goods and negotiate harder at the point of sale. They are more willing to postpone purchases, trade down, or buy less. Must-have features of yesterday are today's can-live-withouts. Trusted brands are especially valued and they can still launch new products successfully, but interest in new brands and new categories fades. Conspicuous consumption becomes less prevalent.

2. Focus on family values. When economic hard times loom, we tend to retreat to our village. Look for cozy hearth-and-home family scenes in advertising to replace images of extreme sports, adventure, and rugged individualism. Zany humor and appeals on the basis of fear are out. Greeting card sales, telephone use, and discretionary spending on home furnishings and home entertainment will hold up well, as uncertainty prompts us to stay at home but also stay connected with family and friends.

Now may be the time to drop your weaker distributors and upgrade your sales force.

3. Maintain marketing spending. This is not the time to cut advertising. It is well documented that brands that increase advertising during a recession, when competitors are cutting back, can improve market share and return on investment at lower cost than during good economic times. Uncertain consumers need the reassurance of known brands, and more consumers at home watching television can deliver higher than expected audiences at lower cost-per-thousand impressions. Brands with deep pockets may be able to negotiate favorable advertising rates and lock them in for several years. If you have to cut marketing spending, try to maintain the frequency of advertisements by shifting from 30-second to 15-second advertisements, substituting radio for television advertising, or increasing the use of direct marketing, which gives more immediate sales impact.

4. Adjust product portfolios. Marketers must reforecast demand for each item in their product lines as consumers trade down to models that stress good value, such as cars with fewer options. Tough times favor multi-purpose goods over specialized products, and weaker items in product lines should be pruned. In grocery-products categories, good-quality own-brands gain at the expense of national brands. Industrial customers prefer to see products and services unbundled and priced separately. Gimmicks are out; reliability, durability, safety, and performance are in. New products, especially those that address the new consumer reality and thereby put pressure on competitors, should still be introduced, but advertising should stress superior price performance, not corporate image.

When economic hard times loom, we tend to retreat to our village.

5. Support distributors. In uncertain times, no one wants to tie up working capital in excess inventories. Early-buy allowances, extended financing, and generous return policies motivate distributors to stock your full product line. This is particularly true with unproven new products. Be careful about expanding distribution to lower-priced channels; doing so can jeopardize existing relationships and your brand image. However, now may be the time to drop your weaker distributors and upgrade your sales force by recruiting those sacked by other companies.

6. Adjust pricing tactics. Customers will be shopping around for the best deals. You do not necessarily have to cut list prices, but you may need to offer more temporary price promotions, reduce thresholds for quantity discounts, extend credit to long-standing customers, and price smaller pack sizes more aggressively. In tough times, price cuts attract more consumer support than promotions such as sweepstakes and mail-in offers.

7. Stress market share. In all but a few technology categories where growth prospects are strong, companies are in a battle for market share and, in some cases, survival. Knowing your cost structure can ensure that any cuts or consolidation initiatives will save the most money with minimum customer impact. Companies such as Wal-Mart and Southwest Airlines, with strong positions and the most productive cost structures in their industries, can expect to gain market share. Other companies with healthy balance sheets can do so by acquiring weak competitors.

8. Emphasize core values. Although most companies are making employees redundant, chief executives can cement the loyalty of those who remain by assuring employees that the company has survived difficult times before, maintaining quality rather than cutting corners, and servicing existing customers rather than trying to be all things to all people. CEOs must spend more time with customers and employees. Economic recession can elevate the importance of the finance director's balance sheet over the marketing manager's income statement. Managing working capital can easily dominate managing customer relationships. CEOs must counter this. Successful companies do not abandon their marketing strategies in a recession; they adapt them.

Join the discussion on Harvard Business Online.

This post is based on an article by John Quelch that appeared in The Financial Times of London on February 19, 2008. Reproduced by permission.

• 01 May 2024
• What Do You Think?

Have You Had Enough?

• 01 Nov 2021

How Long Does It Take to Improve an Organization’s Culture?

• 01 May 2013

Why Isn’t ‘Servant Leadership’ More Prevalent?

• 26 Apr 2024

Deion Sanders' Prime Lessons for Leading a Team to Victory

• 05 Jul 2012

Why Is Trust So Hard to Achieve in Management?

• Marketing Strategy
• Customer Focus and Relationships
• Economic Slowdown and Stagnation
• Distribution
• Consumer Behavior

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

More From Forbes

How will you know if your market research methods are outdated.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Founder and CEO of market research consultancy, Alter Agents ; believer that powerful insights can change businesses.

If you’re still focusing on the brand, and not the consumers you want to reach, that’s your first clue that you may need to reimagine your insights approach. My company's research has shown that just about half of consumers start their purchase journey feeling ambivalent about brand, and it is low on their list of considerations. They’re making decisions that are grounded in their personal needs at that moment, influenced by a wide variety of contextual circumstances. So why do researchers continue to ask so many questions about brand?

Part of it is just plain habit. We "grew up" asking questions that related back to the pillars of brand awareness, consideration and preference. While this model has been updated slightly to reflect the massive changes in the consumer landscape, all most have done is simply tart up old ways of doing things. There’s a desire to make sense of the shopping landscape by using neat, familiar categories, but as researchers, we really need to start from scratch with our approach.

It's Time To Shift Our Thinking

Nothing is the same as it used to be. For example, our surveys used to show that shoppers were focused on price, and somewhat on brand consideration. However, back then, shoppers didn't have as many choices as they do now: They went to the store, saw a set number of brands on the shelf and had to choose among them. When choices are restricted, our stories and our possibilities become quite narrow. But in today’s economy, things have changed. Unlimited options, a huge abundance of information, a growing number of purchase channels and even personal values now come into play.

Think about the massive direct-to-consumer market, which some say will make up 50% of all sales within the next three years. And that’s just one example. Social media platforms like Instagram, TikTok, YouTube and others now have e-commerce initiatives, some with native payment solutions. Predicting what brands and shopping channels will emerge over the next decade is impossible. But we know shoppers are becoming more accustomed to the new and unorthodox. We're seeing them adapt to new channels and technologies in real time. And this just touches the surface of all the changes occurring in the consumer and shopping ecosystem. Shoppers are becoming more and more promiscuous with all of these choices.

$300 Billion ‘Perfect Storm’ Bitcoin Price Crash Under $60,000 Suddenly Accelerates As Ethereum, XRP And Crypto Brace For Shock Fed Flip

The top 10 richest people in the world (may 2024), toyota s suv lineup is new and refreshed which one is right for you.

We need to start shifting our thinking as researchers by asking ourselves the question: Is my brand narcissistic? Many of us have a visceral negative reaction to the concept of narcissism—ever since we heard the myth of Narcissus peering into the pool of water, becoming entranced by his own reflection and ultimately perishing. But here, I'm not talking about anything quite so drastic as fatal self-love … or am I? Focusing on the brand in market research can be fatal to success.

Reimagining Your Approach To Insights

So how do you update your research methods for today’s consumer? Here are some good practices to implement:

• Prioritize the consumer: This is about how you ask questions and how you approach the research problem as a whole. If you run a tracker or consumer satisfaction surveys, take a look at whether your metrics are inherently narcissistic. Always ask yourself whether the data you seek is focused on your shoppers—their likes, wants, needs, barriers, motivations, circumstances and values—and less on your brand. Everything you do should feed into your understanding of consumer and shopper needs.

• Use a mix of research methods: Consumers are complex. The shopping landscape is complex. A single methodology, like a survey, is usually not enough to build understanding. Consider employing multimodal studies that blend quantitative data, neuroscience and qualitative interviews to tackle the questions you need answered. The more methods you employ, the better your understanding will be.

• Adapt research practices for the digital age: Just like we need to evolve away from narcissistic models, we must also embrace emerging technologies and online platforms to gather insights in new ways. For example, reevaluate the necessity of in-person research post-pandemic and explore innovative qualitative alternatives to maximize efficiency and expand sample sizes while preserving the depth of understanding.

When insights no longer positively affect business outcomes, our jobs as researchers become obsolete. Staying a step ahead of your consumer audience by seeking a deep understanding of them—not your brand—can give you powerful insights that engage stakeholders and raise the value of research programs across organizations. As my company's chief strategy officer and I wrote in our book, your insights can ensure that “the voice of the shopper is not the last place brands come to but the first.”

Forbes Agency Council is an invitation-only community for executives in successful public relations, media strategy, creative and advertising agencies. Do I qualify?

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Table of Contents

Immigration status, educational attainment, poverty status, homeownership, top states of residence, marital status, methodology, facts on hispanics of mexican origin in the united states, 2021.

An estimated 37.2 million Hispanics of Mexican origin lived in the United States in 2021, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. Mexicans in this statistical profile are people who self-identified as Hispanics of Mexican origin; this includes immigrants from Mexico and those who trace their family ancestry to Mexico.

Mexicans are the largest population of Hispanic origin living in the United States, accounting for 60% of the U.S. Hispanic population in 2021. From 2000 to 2021, the Mexican-origin population increased 79%, growing from 20.9 million to 37.2 million. At the same time, the Mexican foreign-born population living in the U.S. grew by 23%, from 8.7 million in 2000 to 10.7 million in 2021.

For a downloadable spreadsheet of these findings, see “ U.S. Hispanic population data (detailed tables) .”

Note: Figures greater than 1 million are rounded to the nearest 100,000; other figures greater than 100,000 are rounded to the nearest 10,000; figures that are less than or equal to 100,000 and greater than 25,000 are rounded to the nearest 5,000.

Source: Pew Research Center tabulations of the 2000 census (5% IPUMS) and the 2010 and 2021 American Community Surveys (1% IPUMS).

The following key facts compare demographic and economic characteristics of the Mexican-origin population in the U.S. with the characteristics of U.S. Hispanics and the U.S. population overall. They are based on Pew Research Center tabulations of the 2021 American Community Survey.

• Among Hispanics in the U.S., 32% are foreign born, compared with 29% of U.S. Mexicans.
• 62% of foreign-born Mexicans have been in the U.S. for over 20 years, and 35% of foreign-born Mexicans are U.S. citizens.
• 20% of U.S. Hispanics ages 25 and older have obtained at least a bachelor’s degree, compared with 15% of Mexicans.
• Among Mexicans ages 25 and older, the U.S. born are more likely than the foreign born to have a bachelor’s degree or higher (21% vs. 9%).
• Among U.S. Hispanics and Mexicans, the median annual personal earnings for those ages 16 and older was $30,000.
• Looking at full-time, year-round workers, U.S. Hispanics earned $40,000, while Mexicans also earned $40,000.
• The share of U.S. Hispanics overall who live in poverty is 18%. The share is the same for Mexicans.
• 18% of U.S.-born Mexicans live in poverty, as do 17% of foreign-born Mexicans.
• The rate of homeownership among U.S. Hispanic households is 51%, compared with 53% for Mexicans.
• Among Mexicans in the U.S., rates of homeownership are 54% for the U.S. born and 53% for foreign born.
• The Mexican population is concentrated in California (34%), Texas (26%), Arizona (5%), Illinois (5%) and Colorado (2%).
• The median age of U.S. Hispanics  (29.5) is similar to that of Mexicans (27.9) and lower than that of the U.S. population (37.8).
• U.S. Hispanics ages 18 and older are about as likely to be married (46%) as Mexicans (47%).
• Among Mexicans ages 18 and older, those who are foreign born are more likely to be married than U.S.-born Mexicans (62% vs. 37%).
• 6% of U.S. Hispanic females ages 15 to 44 gave birth in the 12 months prior to the July 2021 American Community Survey. That was similar to the rate for Mexican females (7%).
• 72% of U.S. Hispanics ages 5 and older speak only English at home or speak English at least “very well,” compared with 74% of Mexicans.
• Meanwhile, 67% of Hispanic adults are English proficient, as are 69% of Mexican adults.

Note: This is an update of a fact sheet originally published in September 2019, which former Research Analyst  Antonio Flores contributed to and co-wrote.

Pew Research Center’s fact sheets on U.S. Latinos and the accompanying blog post examine the Latino population of the United States overall and by its 17 largest origin groups – Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Salvadorans, Dominicans, Cubans, Guatemalans, Colombians, Hondurans, Spaniards, Ecuadorians, Peruvians, Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, Argentines, Panamanians, Chileans and Costa Ricans. These sheets provide detailed geographic, demographic and economic characteristics for all Latinos and for each Latino origin group. They are based on the Center’s tabulations of the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 and 2021 American Community Survey (ACS) and the 2000 U.S. decennial census.

The ACS is the largest household survey in the United States, with a sample of more than 3 million addresses . It covers the topics previously covered in the long form of the decennial census. The ACS is designed to provide estimates of the size and characteristics of the resident population, which includes persons living in households and group quarters. For more about the ACS, including the sampling strategy and associated error, see the 2010 or 2021 American Community Survey’s Accuracy of the Data document provided by the Census Bureau.

The specific data sources for these fact sheets are the 1% samples of the 2010 and 2021 ACS Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) provided by the University of Minnesota and the 5% sample of the 2000 decennial census. IPUMS assigns uniform codes, to the extent possible, to data collected by the decennial census and the ACS from 1850 to 2021. For more information about IPUMS, including variable definition and sampling error, please visit the “ IPUMS Documentation and User Guide .”

Due to differences in the way in which IPUMS and Census Bureau adjust income data and assign poverty status, data provided on these topics might differ from data that are provided by the Census Bureau.

For the purposes of these fact sheets, the foreign born include those persons who identified as naturalized citizens or noncitizens and are living in the 50 states or the District of Columbia. Persons born in Puerto Rico and other outlying territories of the U.S. and who are now living in the 50 states or D.C. are included in the U.S.-born population.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

The AI-fueled stock market bubble will crash in 2026, research firm says

• The AI-fueled stock market bubble will burst in 2026, according to Capital Economics.
• The research firm said rising interest rates and higher inflation will weigh down equity valuations.
• "We suspect that the bubble will ultimately burst beyond the end of next year, causing a correction in valuations."

An artificial intelligence-fueled stock market bubble will burst in 2026, according to Capital Economics.

The research firm has said that a stock market bubble, driven by investor excitement towards artificial intelligence, would drive the S&P 500 to as high as 6,500 by 2025, led by technology stocks.

But starting in 2026, those stock market gains should unwind precipitously as higher interest rates and an elevated inflation rate start to weigh down equity valuations.

"Ultimately, we anticipate that returns from equities over the next decade will be poorer than over the previous one. And we think that the long-running outperformance of the US stock market may come to an end," Capital Economics' Diana Iovanel and James Reilly said.

Their bearish stock market call is somewhat counter-intuitive, as the economists expect the growing adoption of AI will spark a boost in economic growth driven by increases in productivity. That economic boost should result in higher inflation than most expect and, in tandem, higher interest rates.

Higher interest rates and inflation are ultimately bad news for stock prices, as evidenced by the recent stock market decline , which was sparked by a surprisingly hot March CPI inflation report.

"We suspect that the bubble will ultimately burst beyond the end of next year, causing a correction in valuations. After all, this dynamic played out around both the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s and early 2000s and the Great Crash of 1929," Iovanel and Reilly said. 

The expected bursting of the stock market bubble should lead to a decade of investment returns that favor bonds over stocks. 

"We expect stronger returns as government bond yields settle at higher levels," Capital Economics said of the fixed-income market. 

Capital Economics forecasts that between now and the end of 2033, US stocks will deliver average annual returns of just 4.3%, which is well below the long-term average return of about 7% after inflation. Meanwhile, Capital Economics said it expects US Treasurys will return 4.5% in the same period, slightly edging out equity gains. 

Those projected returns are in stark contrast to the average annual returns of 13.1% delivered by US stocks over the past decade.

"American exceptionalism may end in the coming years," Iovanel and Reilly said.

But there is one major risk to their outlook, according to the analysts, and that's the inherent difficulty of accurately timing the top of a stock market bubble, and how long the unwinding of the bubble might last.

"When and how the AI-fueled equity bubble bursts is a key risk to our forecast. In particular, one downside risk is that the aftermath of the bursting of the bubble lasts longer than one year, as was the case following the dot com bubble," Iovanel and Reilly said.

• Main content