J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci.
(2011) 39:40–54
DOI 10.1007/s11747-010-0193-6
Sustainability and consumption
Ming-Hui Huang & Roland T. Rust
Received: 10 December 2009 / Accepted: 9 March 2010 / Published online: 21 April 2010
# Academy of Marketing Science 2010
Abstract We consider the implications of the three pillars
of sustainability (environment, economy and social justice)
on consumption in a wealthy country. Building a theoretical
model that includes consumers, business, government, the
environment, and economic and political relations between
nations, we explore how sustainability should affect the
consumption behavior of consumers, charitable aid to
poorer countries, and responsible environmental practices
by businesses. Our model enables us to provide normative
implications for consumers, society and business. Impor-
tantly, we assume that all stakeholders will optimize their
self-interest, and that altruism will only partly explain
behavior consistent with sustainability. Among the more
non-obvious findings are that (1) the poorer the poor
countries are, the less the rich countries should consume,
(2) the more sensitive the global political climate is to
economic inequity between the rich and poor nations, the
less the rich countries should consume, and (3) if aid to
poor countries is effective enough, then the more material-
istic the society is, the more charitable aid it should give.
We also confirm a number of more intuitive findings, such
as that business should use more green technology as the
Ming-Hui Huang and Roland T. Rust contributed equally to the paper.
M.-H. Huang
Department of Information Management,
National Taiwan University,
Taipei, Taiwan
e-mail: huangmh@ntu.edu.tw
R. T. Rust (*)
Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland,
College Park, MD 20742, USA
e-mail: rrust@rhsmith.umd.edu
taxes on pollution and/or efficiency of green technology
increase, and the more resource-intensive consumption is,
the less consumers should consume. Taken as a whole, the
findings imply that societal consumption patterns should be
sensitive to aspects of environmental impact and social
justice, even if altruistic motivations are absent.
Keywords Sustainability . Consumption . Social value
creation . Environmental policy . Green technology .
Global conflict . Materialism . Happiness . Global inequity .
Resource consumption . Customer satisfaction
Introduction
The recent 2009 Copenhagen climate conference received
unprecedented media coverage and political participation
due to our desperate need to cool down the globe. The
purpose of this conference was to reach an agreement on
emission control. In its preconference in the Caribbean,
several industrial countries promised to financially aid
poorer countries to reduce greenhouse gases. The ultimate
success of the conference depends on a global agreement
that allows us to avoid the risks of climate change, to
overcome poverty worldwide, and to guide business into a
sustainable path. The attention that this climate conference
received highlights the complexity of the sustainability
issue surrounding the interactions of economic viability,
social equality and environmental impact. It has been
observed that resources consumed in the world are not
equally distributed, costs of pollution need to be borne,
wars and conflicts may follow from consumption inequity;
environmental and charitable aid are involved in the
solution, as is the capability of technologies to reduce
pollution.
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2011) 39:40–54
These sustainability issues are the historical result of
the prevailing belief within Western industrial societies
that both firms and consumers are self-interested entities,
with consumers maximizing utility through consumption
(Hetrick 1989; Kilbourne et al. 1997) and with firms
maximizing profit through meeting the demand. The belief
that the road to happiness is through consumption ignores
the fact that the resources for consumption are limited
(Lowe 1998) and the consumption of the limited resources
are not equal globally (Dierksmeier and Pirson 2009; Lowe
1998). Consumers in the industrialized nations consume
more than 80% of the limited natural resources (Lowe
1998), and as a result, consumption inequity has become a
significant source of global tension. This gives rise to the
advocacy of sustainable consumption whereby each person
should consume only their “earth share” in order to make
the consumption socially equitable and ecologically sus-
tainable (Peattie and Collins 2009). Sustainable consump-
tion is argued to minimize environmental effects, consider
the needs of future generations, and produce a better quality
of life (Kilbourne et al. 1997).
We approach the sustainability issue from the societal
consumption perspective, which is an angle that is mostly
ignored in the literature. Treating consumption as the
driving pillar, we explore how sustainability should affect
the consumption behavior of individual consumers, societal
charitable aid to poorer countries, and responsible corporate
environmental practices. This approach reflects a consumer
orientation to the sustainability issue; by recognizing that
consumers’ interest comes first and by meeting consumers’
current and future needs, a firm can be competitively
sustainable (e.g., Day 1994). This is in alternative to the
mainstream sustainability research that focuses on whether
and to what extent sustainability factors impact firms’
profitability. Consumers’ awareness of environmental,
social and global problems caused by consumption has
increased during the last decade, which has caused them to
weigh environmental performance of goods and services
more heavily than before when making consumption
decisions. A true understanding of this consumer interest
will enable firms, societies and individual consumers to
make better decisions about consumption and socially
responsible expenditures, which is distinct from treating
social responsibility as a public relations gimmick.
Specifically, we model the relationship between sustain-
ability and consumption, taking consumers’ happiness, firms’
profits, and the consumption inequity across countries into
consideration. In the tradition of economic theory, we view
both consumers and firms as self-interested entities striving to
maximize their self-interest. The consumer wishes to maxi-
mize utility, seen here as happiness, and the firm seeks to
maximize its profits. This consumption perspective to
sustainability sheds light on the triangle of society, economy
41
and environment. We reach the conclusion that societal
consumption should be sensitive to sustainability, even if
only self-interest is pursued, especially when the consump-
tion gap is big between rich and poor countries, the political
climate is sensitive to consumption inequities, and society is
materialistic.
Sustainability
Following the most widely used definition from the
1987 Brundtland Report of the World Commission on
Environment and Development (WCED), we view sustain-
ability as “meeting the needs of the present without compro-
mising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs” (United Nations 1987). This definition emphasizes the
importance of environmental quality and the conservation
of nature’s assets in consumption (Strong 1997). We see
sustainability as the triple bottom line of economic profit-
ability, respect for the environment and social responsibility
(Boyd 2001; Johnson 2009).
The consumer and society
We assume that consumers’ objective function is to max-
imize their happiness, which is based on their standard of
living, psychic rewards due to environmental sacrifice,
and psychic rewards from their society’s charitable aid to
poorer nations. The richer a country, the better able are
their people to consume more resources to increase their
standard of living and enjoy more happiness. However,
we find that consumers’ happiness may not be maximized
if their standard of living is achieved at the expense of the
resource consumption of poorer countries. The assump-
tions about consumers are made based on the two
important concepts of sustainability: there are limited
resources for consumption, and consumers may be willing
to consume less, based on their self-interest, to reduce the
world’s consumption inequality (Thogersen and Crompton
2009).
Business and government
Following neoclassical economics, we assume that both
consumers and firms optimize their self-interests. Consum-
ers seek to maximize their happiness. Business seeks to
maximize profits, which are based on revenue from
consumers, minus the cost of adopting green technologies
for providing the goods and services, and reduced also by
taxes and penalties paid to government for pollution
produced. Greater production inefficiency leads to more
pollution, and use of green technology leads to less
pollution. Government can influence business behavior
through the use of pollution taxes.
42
Goal of the paper
Our goal is to show how consumers, business and
government interrelate with respect to sustainability and
consumption, and to derive optimal behaviors for consumers
and business with respect to decisions about consumption,
environmental sacrifice, charitable aid to poorer countries and
use of green technology. We show how these decisions impact
consumer standard of living and happiness, corporate profits,
pollution levels and global conflict. In the remaining sections,
we first build a theory of sustainability and consumption and
make that theory explicit using a simple mathematical model.
We then present results, and conclude with a discussion of
implications for both consumers and business.
Theory
Figure 1 illustrates our theory, which constitutes three
integrated parts: societal, corporate, and geopolitical. Our
Figure 1 Conceptual
framework.
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2011) 39:40–54
theory can be looked at from both macro and micro levels.
At the micro level, there are a representative consumer and
a representative firm who interact in a market. At the macro
level, there are societal, the aggregate of all consumers;
corporate, the aggregate of all firms; and geopolitical, the
aggregate of all markets across all geographical areas that
constitutes the global economy.
Both micro and macro analyses are necessary because
environmental consequences cannot be considered from
a micro view only. Kilbourne et al. (1997) point out that
micro analysis that pursues Pareto optimality (one con-
sumer is made better off without making other consumers
worse off) tends to ignore that one consumer’s choice
can have negative as well as positive effects on other
consumers. Macro analysis deals directly with the unequal
distribution of wealth within and between countries. This
flexibility is important as most sustainability studies focus
on macro analysis that orients toward the public side of
norms and practices whereas consumption research
focuses on micro analysis that orients toward the private
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2011) 39:40–54
side of consumers’ everyday life (Stern et al. 1995;
Trentmann 2007).
In the following sections we develop the conceptual
basis of our theory. There are five dependent variables that
link together the three parts of the theory: consumer/societal
(happiness and standard of living), corporate (corporate profit
and pollution), and geopolitical (global conflict).
Consumer/societal effects
Happiness
Happiness is quality of life or overall life satisfaction
(Sirgy 1998), which is the degree to which consumers
judge the overall quality of their lives as a whole favorably
(Selim 2008). It is considered to be an ultimate goal in life,
universally pursued, and is sought for its own sake
(Dierksmeier and Pirson 2009; Paim 1995; Selim 2008).
Happiness, as a surrogate for utility maximization (Clark
et al. 2005; Sen 1987) in our theory, connotes a well-
ordered state of affairs, which is more than a subjective
state of pleasure. According to Aristotle, it is an objective
state of being, to be attained by rational activity. Individuals
are happy (well-ordered), when they rationally harmonize
their outer and inner world so as to live self-sufficiently
(Dierksmeier and Pirson 2009).
Happiness depends on many things, including income,
labor market status, job characteristics, health, leisure,
family, social relationships, security, liberty, moral values
and many others (Clark et al. 2005; Selim 2008). We focus
on three major factors related to sustainability that impact
consumers’ happiness: standard of living, psychic rewards
emanating from environmentally responsible behavior, and
charity toward poorer countries.
Standard of living Consumers’ happiness is a function of
standard of living. In contrast to happiness that includes all
aspects of consumer life, such as leisure, safety, cultural
resources, social and personal life, physical health, and
environmental quality issues, standard of living is associ-
ated only with material and monetary aspects of life, that is,
economic welfare (Paramio and Zofío 2008). The positive
relationship between standard of living and happiness is
well-documented. The prevailing belief within Western indus-
trial societies is that the sure and only road to happiness is
through consumption (Hetrick 1989; Rees 2001). Satisfaction
with material possessions was found to have a greater effect
on satisfaction with life in general than did any other domain
of life (e.g., spiritual life and the development of the self)
(Leelakulthanit et al. 1991). The ideology of consumption of
Western industrial societies maintains that increasing material
well-being provides the basis for quality of life. This ideology
43
of consumption as the main means for achieving quality
of life is further promoted by marketing (Hetrick 1989;
Kilbourne et al. 1997; Kilbourne 2004).
The association is stronger for poorer countries than for
rich countries. Leelakulthanit et al. (1991) found that in
developing countries satisfaction of material needs is a
prerequisite to spiritual development because material
possessions are necessary for maintenance of a certain
standard of living. They further argue that satisfaction of
material needs is important to people because it facilitates
satisfaction with many other domains of life, such as social
life, the government, life in the country itself, work life and
so on. Easterlin (2000) also echoes this view. He observes
that in the post-World War II period, standard of living was
typically conceived in purely material terms, e.g., the goods
and services at one’s disposal. However, with the economic
development in recent decades, it has been argued that
happiness depends on a wide variety of financial and
nonfinancial factors and GDP per capita alone is not
sufficient for capturing a number of important aspects of
happiness.
Although there is a general positive relationship between
standard of living and happiness, the relationship may not
be linear and may be moderated by other factors. Selim
(2008) found that in general high-income countries rank
high on subjective well-being (i.e., happiness in our study)
and low income countries, such as ex-communist countries,
rank low. However, Latin American countries also rank
high, even if their income levels are not correspondingly
high. Dierksmeier and Pirson (2009) review that wealth and
well-being are only correlated up to a certain wealth level.
Easterlin (2000) notes that the growths of GNP and well-
being are actually disconnected in developed societies.
Layard (2005) states that beyond a certain income level,
well-being is influenced mainly by social factors rather than
by income.
One of these moderating factors is materialism. Materialism
is a consumer value in which income, wealth, and material
possessions, especially acquiring goods and services that
marketers provide, are important in achieving happiness in
life (Belk 1985; Muncy and Eastman 1998; Richins and
Dawson 1992). Sirgy (1998) defines materialism as a
condition in which the material life domain is considered to
be highly salient relative to other life domains. Richins and
Dawson (1992) further identify acquisition centrality, acqui-
sition as the pursuit of happiness, and possession-defined
success, as the three components of materialism.
The more materialistic the consumer is, the stronger
impact that standard of living has on consumers’ happiness.
For materialistic consumers, acquisitions and possessions of
consumer goods and services are central to their lives in
that the consumers feel that increased consumption
44
increases their satisfaction and well-being in life (Richins
and Dawson 1992). In his conceptual paper, Sirgy (1998)
postulates that materialistic people regard achieving and
maintaining a certain level of standard of living as highly
instrumental in achieving happiness in life.
Psychic rewards However, material possessions and eco-
nomic wealth are not the only sources that contribute to
consumers’ happiness. As Ottman et al. (2006) have
argued, consumers make consumption choices to maximize
satisfaction without further deteriorating environmental
quality. Misjudging either or overemphasizing the former
at the expense of the latter would only end up with green
marketing myopia—marketers’ myopic focus on their
products’ “greenness” over the broader expectations of
consumers.
We identify environmental sacrifice and charitable aid
as two factors that bring psychic benefits to consumers
that contribute positively to their consumption utility.
The two factors are the amount of consumption forsaken
by consumers that makes them indifferent between not
consuming and consuming.
Consumers have increasingly recognized that growth in
individual material consumption may not be compatible
with the well-being of the larger society and may generate
adverse environmental effects (Feldman 1971). If consumers
move away from their focus on material acquisitions and
toward non-material quality of life concerns, then they will
consume less from the economic system. Green or ethical
consumers are willing to consume less (Pepper et al. 2009),
compromise on price, brand, convenience, or even product
performance, to ensure that their consumptions are achieved
in line with their principles (Dierksmeier and Pirson 2009;
McDonald et al. 2009). This will contribute to, not lessen,
their utility, even if the absolute level of consumption is
lower.
There are desirable benefits associated with the consump-
tion of green products, such as health, safety, symbolism, and
status (Ottman et al. 2006). Consumers have their internal
concept of happiness. In addition to economic goods,
consumers, especially those in rich countries, also desire
bodily health and satisfaction of the mind (Vanderschraaf
1999). Consumers translate their needs and core values into
their consumption decisions in their purchase of green
goods and services (McDonald et al. 2009). Thogersen and
Crompton (2009) state that performing a pro-environmental
behavior leads consumers to think of themselves highly as
the kind of persons who care for the environment. Flatters
and Willmott (2009) observe the trend that consumers
continue to embrace green consumerism by ramping up
cheap and discreet methods of reducing waste—switching
off lights, recycling more, and buying less. The authors
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2011) 39:40–54
find that many consumers increasingly desire a less
wasteful life and show a solid interest in green consump-
tion because they find personal and practical satisfaction in
this discretionary thrift.
The more willing consumers are to sacrifice materially
for preserving the environment (bear in mind consumers are
self-interested in our theory; thus, consumers are doing so
to maximize their utility, not to decrease it), we say those
consumers have a higher degree of environmental awareness.
Environmental awareness became increasingly evident in the
1990s, as social and environmental concerns assumed a
greater level of importance in consumers’ product choice, and
consumers were observed to shift their buying criteria toward
environmental responsibility (Menon et al. 1999).
Sustainability can be achieved via green or ethical
consumption. Ethical consumption is associated more
strongly with global politics (Carrier 2007) and the sense
of justice (e.g., fair trade) (Varul 2008). Ethical consump-
tion is buying goods and services that are produced in
circumstances that meet the consumer’s ethical criteria
(Carrier 2007). In our global economy, ethical consumption
has a clear implication for the equity of global consump-
tion. Ethical consumers make efforts to change what they
see as the less attractive face of the international economic
order (Carrier 2007) and attempt to alleviate the inequity
via acts such as the use of fair trade products (Varul 2008).
Ethical consumption reflects that consumers have a higher
level of global awareness, which goes beyond environmental
issues that directly affect consumers. It involves not just
consuming less, but also changing consumption practices to
be in line with the ethics of consumption (Barnett et al. 2005).
It is a concern about trading relationships with the poor
countries, forming a fair trade factor in consumer purchase
decision making (Barratt-Brown 1993). Fair trade is a shift
in values towards concern for poor countries and sustainable
development (Strong 1997). It is a long-standing consumer-
ism issue, and several international brands have successful
captured this consumer value, such as Body Shop and
Starbucks.
Charitable aid to poorer countries In addition to consuming
less or buying green, consumers can also obtain psychological
benefits from giving charitable aid to consumers in poorer
countries. When charitable aid to poor countries impacts the
consumer’s happiness, we say that this consumer in the rich
country has a higher level of global awareness. Easterlin
(2000) reported in his study that, according to an intensive
survey involving twelve countries carried out by a social
psychologist, there is a trend toward a greater level of global
awareness. The survey includes developed and less devel-
oped countries, asking open-ended questions about what
people want out of life. In the early 1960s concerns about
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2011) 39:40–54
broad international or domestic issues, such as war, political
or civil liberty, and social equality, were not often men-
tioned, while by the 1990s awareness and concern for health,
human and animal welfare, environmental damage and
genetic engineering were much more widespread among
consumers.
Behaving in a pro-social manner, such as making a
donation to a charity, is likely to benefit well-being. Dunn
et al. (2008) found that both income (i.e., the proxy of
standard of living) and donations to charity can lead to
greater happiness. People who spent a higher percentage on
pro-social activities, like giving money to nonprofit groups,
were significantly happier than people who only paid bills
or splurged on themselves. The donors and recipients of
charitable aid can be individual consumers or institutions.
For example, environmental aid can be the financial
transfer from the rich countries to the poor countries for
the purpose of protecting or restoring the environment
through the promotion of projects ranging from environ-
mental education to land conservation (Lewis 2003). It is
also common for individual consumers to give for charity
purposes, such as the donating to UNICEF (United Nations
Children’s Fund).
There are decreasing returns to the psychic benefits of
giving to charity, and it may become more difficult as the
amount given becomes a very large percentage of the
person’s disposable income. For example, Flatters and
Willmott (2009) predict that in a recession consumers will
become thriftier and focus on their own dire situations.
Fair-trade products are often expensive compared with
traditional alternatives. Thus, the trend for ethical con-
sumption will probably slow down in a recession.
Standard of living
Standard of living—economic welfare—in contrast to
happiness as the global life domain of consumers is the
level of material and monetary wealth of an individual,
group, or society (Paramio and Zofío 2008). GDP per
capita, the aggregate index of production and consumption,
is the most commonly used indicator. Other measures such
as access and quality of health care, income growth inequality
and educational standards have also been used in recent years
(Berenger and Verdier-Chouchane 2007). Our theory posits
that standard of living is mainly a function of consumption,
and it is reduced by factors such as pollution, global conflict,
material sacrifice for environment, and charitable aid to
consumers in poorer countries.
The impact of consumption level on standard of living is
a direct application of the impact of income on utility in
neoclassical economics: the higher the level of consumption
one has, the higher is the level of well-being attained.
Standard of living has been gauged using consumption-
45
related measures such as goods and services available for
consumption, for example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics’
(BLS) Standard Budgets1 (Fisher 2007), the United
Nations’ Level of Living Indicators (Horn 1976), and the
acquisition and possession of material goods2 (Day 1978;
Leelakulthanit et al. 1991). In discussing the worldwide
standard of living, Easterlin (2000) observes that the
quantity of goods consumed by the average person has
multiplied in the era of modern economic growth. The
accelerating rate of improvement is most apparent on a
worldwide scale since the mid-20th century. In exploring
the relationship between standard of living and quality of
life, Sirgy (1998) postulates that people have beliefs about
their standard of living in terms of acquisition and possession
of material goods, wealth, and income. Acquisition of
material goods refers to the domain of objects, persons and
events related to the purchase of material goods, and
possession of material goods refers to the collection of objects
that have monetary value, e.g., house/apartment, furniture,
car/truck, and clothing/accessories.
The effect of consumption on standard of living has
decreasing returns (e.g., consumption gets increasingly
difficult as it becomes a higher percentage of the consumer’s
income). At the macro level, it has been observed that as
standard of living increases, the non-material factors account
for an increasing proportion for standard of living compared
to the material factors, and thus GDP per capita would not be
able to reflect a number of important aspects of human
welfare. As a result, since 1990 the United Nations has
reported annually the Human Development Index (HDI) that
combines standard of living (i.e., GDP per capita), life
expectancy at birth, and education (i.e., literacy and school
enrollment) as an overall index to account for a country’s level
of human development (United Nations Human Development
Reports 2009). In talking about the relationship between
standard of living and happiness (i.e., quality of life in their
study), Jacobsen (1991) states that equivalent consecutive
increases in the standard of living will not yield equivalent
consecutive increases in the quality of life; as our standard
of living increases up to a certain point, the incremental
contribution which such increases make to the quality of our
lives will diminish towards zero.
Several factors, including pollution and environmental
damage, wars and global conflict, material sacrifice and
charitable aid to poorer countries, operate to lower standard
of living. All these factors will be discussed respectively in
the corporate and the geopolitical sections. For example,
1
A “standard budget” is a list of goods and services that a family of a
specified size and composition would need to live at a designated level
of well-being, together with the estimated monthly or annual costs of
those goods and services (Fisher 2007).
2
Material possessions and acquisition are conceptualized as the
marketing domains of life.
46
global conflict reduces the standard of living through such
things as expenditures for armed conflict, price increases,
insecurity and physical danger. Economic development
does not occur in a social vacuum. Although industrializa-
tion around the world has significantly raised living
standards and material affluence (Martinsons et al. 1996),
it has also created global conflict that reduces our standard
of living. Rasche et al. (2008) illustrate the negative impact
of violent conflicts on economic activity with the examples of
wars and conflicts in the Middle East. Constant incidents of
violence in the region result in an unstable and unsecure
economic environment that worries international investors
and multinational corporations, as they are the largest
consumers of energy. This often translates into higher energy
prices for consumers, not to mention a deteriorated standard of
living in the region. We will discuss further this issue of global
conflict later in the paper.
Corporate effects
Corporate profit
Following neoclassical economics, we assume that both
consumers and firms optimize their self-interests. Business
seeks to maximize profits, which are based on revenue from
consumers, minus the cost of adopting green technologies
for providing the goods and services, and reduced also by
taxes and penalties paid to government for pollution
produced. Greater production inefficiency leads to more
pollution, and use of green technology leads to less
pollution. Government can influence business behavior
through the use of pollution taxes.
Corporate profit results from consumption level and
profit margin, which determine total revenue, and is
reduced by environmental taxes and the cost of green
technologies that make up total expenses. The higher the
level of consumption and the higher the profit margin, the
more profitable the firm is, all other things being equal. Our
specification reflects the neoclassical economic efficiency
argument in which firms seek to maximize profits. In a free
competitive market, firms act to maximize their profits for
the production and distribution of goods and services for
consumption that increase the standard of living of
consumers.
Corporate profit is reduced by environmental taxes, for
example, carbon emission taxes. Environmental taxes, one
type of Pigovian taxes,3 are a policymaker’s intervention
via taxes to correct negative externalities, such as pollution
problems (Baumol 1972). They are intended to internalize
3
In the case of positive externalities, Pigovian subsidies are used to
encourage the supply of the goods or services.
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2011) 39:40–54
externalities, that is, to make the producer of a polluting
product or process bear its social costs, some of which may
fall on consumers otherwise (Aasness and Larsen 2003;
Cohen and Winn 2007; Jackson 2000). Jacobsen (1991)
argues that while firms in a free competitive market are
morally justified in acting to increase their profits, tradeoffs
such as trade restrictions, corporate taxes, and other govern-
ment constraints on business are required in order for the
market to retain the relationship between increasing firms’
profits and increasing consumers’ quality of life.
Environmental taxes can improve resource allocation by
reducing the consumption of those goods (Aasness and
Larsen 2003) and by redirecting firms to produce green
and ethical goods and services (Baumol 1972). Aasness and
Larsen (2003) investigate the environmental and distribu-
tional effects of a differentiated tax system on transportation
goods in Norway. They found that higher tax rates on high-
pollution luxury modes of transportation such as air flights
and taxis increase environmental quality, whereas lower tax
rates on low-pollution necessities such as buses, bicycles,
and mopeds increase environmental quality. In conclusion,
as Jacobsen (1991) has argued, even though profits are not
a perfect measure of a firm’s contributions to consumer
happiness, they are nonetheless the best proxy we have.
Firms’ profits might be reduced initially by meeting their
social obligations. However, over time the self-regulatory
nature of the competitive market will direct a firm to
discover the best way to provide safer, cheaper, lower cost
goods and services for consumers that can maximize firm
profits and consumer happiness.
In the short term, environmental taxes and the cost of
green technology reduce firms’ profits due to increased
costs or decreased sales. This short-term detrimental effect
often puts firms off in pursuing environmentally sound
strategies (Cohen and Winn 2007; Johnson 2009), resulting
in green marketing myopia such that marketers myopically
focus on the greenness of their goods and services over the
broader expectations of consumers (Ottman et al. 2006),
thus generating criticisms toward the firm’s profit maxi-
mizing behavior (e.g., Dierksmeier and Pirson 2009).
We should point out that even if environmental taxes and
expenditures on green technology reduce a firm’s profits,
they may be profit-maximizing compatible in the long term
(although we do not model that in our formal theory).
In business, according to Hume’s argument, following
moral norms can be compatible with profit seeking
(Vanderschraaf 1999). Ottman et al. (2006) argue that there
are a variety of desirable benefits associated with green
products, such as efficiency and cost effectiveness, health
and safety, performance and convenience. Product design
or market offerings that incorporate these desirable con-
sumer values can broaden the green product’s appeal to
relevant consumer market segments. Martinsons et al.
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2011) 39:40–54
(1996) observe the conflict between environmentalism and
firms’ environmental awareness in Hong Kong and con-
clude that although environmentalism was not yet a
mainstream social concern in Hong Kong, as compared
with the U.S., many firms still adopted greener business
practices for competitiveness because market solutions
were more welcome than regulations as incentives for
achieving a balance between economic growth and envi-
ronmental quality. Norcia and Tigner (2000) illustrate with
a technology acquisition decision that both profit maximiz-
ing and ethical values interact in a firm’s environmental
decisions. They argue that environmental technologies
enhance operational efficiencies, that environmental products
bring in sales revenues such as increasing returns through
better sales, penetration of green markets, marketing environ-
mental goods and services, and that many firms have
internalized environmental values.
Pollution
Pollution and environmental damage result directly from
the consumption level, but they are increased by production
inefficiency and decreased by the use of green technologies.
Many environmental problems are the results of inefficient
production and consumption, for example, relying heavily
on non-renewable energy technologies and consuming
fossil fuels and forests, that have generated excessive
carbon emissions and resulted in global warming. The
severity of environmental damage has generated a growing
call for a new balance between economic benefits and
environmental preservation (O’Riordan 2009).
Many firms and governments have responded to this call
by developing and deploying green technologies to reduce
pollution. Green technologies are technologies that are used
to protect or enhance the natural environment by conserv-
ing energy and/or resources and reducing or eliminating use
of toxic agents, pollution, and waste (Ottman et al. 2006).
Specifically, in this paper we consider green technologies as
any technologies and technological processes that are used
in making goods and services available for consumption
that deliver environmental benefits, for example energy
efficiency, renewable energy, or clean-tech innovations. In
their book, Natural Capitalism, Hawken et al. (1999) argue
that green technologies need to be more efficient. Green
technologies need to increase the productivity of natural
resources, encourage dematerialization, and reinvest in and
contribute to the planet’s natural capital. If the green
technology is not as efficient as non-technology, then firms
may choose to go after profit and continue to be more
environmentally damaging. For example, green products
may not sell well if the environmental benefit of the
products do not offset their higher price, or the products do
not offer additional features or new styles that consumers
47
desire. The EV-1 of General Motors (GM) and Think
Mobility of Ford are two examples of failed electric vehicles
(Ottman et al. 2006).
Geopolitical effects
Global conflict
Consumption inequity is a significant impediment to
sustainability and is a source of global conflict. Those
consumers who live in the industrialized nations account
for about 20% of the human population, yet they consume
more than 80% of the natural resources now being used,
and rich country consumers who can pay a higher price can
get what they want at the expense of those consumers who
have more limited means (Lowe 1998). Referring to
Aristotle, Dierksmeier and Pirson (2009) state that inequal-
ity of property is one of the things that generates conflicts
between human beings. Those who are in poverty are
bound to stir up revolutions. Barkin (1998) observes that
the world system is polarized between rich and poor
nations. Rich countries dominate the global economy,
guiding production and determining welfare levels. Poor
nations compete among themselves to offer lucrative
conditions that will entice businesses to locate within their
boundaries. While current First World countries polluted
significantly during their development, the same countries
now encourage Third World countries to reduce pollution
during their own development period.
When the global market is not economically efficient in
allocating limited resources, conflict can result. Opotow
and Weiss (2000) argue that environmental conflicts result
from unfair distribution of shared resources (e.g., the
watershed, the air, land use) and harms (e.g., pollution).
They result from perceptions of unfairness, can be obvious
or hidden, constructive or destructive, and occur from within
individuals or at the national level. Whether corporate profit
maximization strategy can result in enhanced consumer
happiness depends on whether there is no consumption
inequity, perceived or real. It has been argued that external
political sectors would trigger a firm’s environmentally-
responsible corporate behavior. We label these external
political forces as political sensitivity, which reflects the
sensitivity of the global political environment to consumption
inequity. The more sensitive the political environment, the
more actively prevention strategies can be developed to
reduce global conflict. Menon and Menon (1997) assert that
firms would be more environmentally responsible when
faced with political and institutional pressures by developing
coordinated multiple stakeholder strategies for long-term
survival. Such strategies can involve alliances with stake-
holders, such as McDonalds’ joint program with the
Environmental Defense Fund.
48
Fortunately, in a recent climate summit in the Caribbean,
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown proposed a $16.5-
billion rich-world fund to help poorer countries reduce
greenhouse gases and adapt to climate change. This act was
an attempt to break the deadlock over emissions cuts by
reassuring poorer countries that they would receive help in
making the transition (Arthy 2009; Fox 2009). This aid to
poorer countries demonstrates that rich countries, which
have accumulated 228,800 million tons of greenhouse gas
emissions up to 2006, compared to poorer countries’
72,580 million tons, should take global inequity into
consideration. This pre-conference of the United Nations’
climate change conference in Copenhagen also signifies the
heightened importance and attention that environmental
issues have received.
A model of sustainability and consumption
In this section we build a formal model of the relationship
between sustainability and consumption. This makes
explicit the theory and assumptions detailed in the previous
section, and it facilitates the derivation of societal implica-
tions. We posit a model for a rich country’s economy, in
which there is a representative business (standing for business
as a whole) and a representative consumer (standing for all
consumers and society in general). This simplification is
necessary for tractability, and even this simple model can
reveal a number of important insights. The result is a two-
person game that can be solved for the optimal decisions for
both consumers and business.
The consumer
Because we are focusing on the relationship between
sustainability and consumption, much of our model focuses
on the consumer. We assume that consumer seeks to
maximize happiness, by choosing the level of consumption,
degree of environmental sacrifice and amount of charitable
aid to poorer countries. Using happiness as the objective is
analogous to the usual economic assumption of utility
maximization, but it is broader in its implications, in
keeping with the broader scope of the model.
Happiness
The consumer’s happiness (H) is a function of standard of
living (S), plus the psychic rewards emanating from
environmentally responsible behavior and charity toward
poorer countries. We reflect this mathematically in the
following equation:
H ¼ a H S þ bH X  c H X 2 þ dH A  e H A 2 ð1Þ
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2011) 39:40–54
where X is the material sacrifice due to environmental
awareness (see Table 1 for the notation used for the
variables), A is the charitable aid to poor nations, aH is
the degree to which standard of living impacts happiness
(interpretable as “materialism”), bH is the degree to which
environmental sacrifice impacts happiness (interpretable as
“environmental awareness”), dH is the degree to which
global charity impacts happiness (interpretable as “global
awareness”) and cH and eH are decreasing returns param-
eters4. The parameters aH, bH, cH, dH and eH are all
assumed to be positive. This equation says that a higher
standard of living leads to greater happiness, and also that
environmental sacrifice and global charity increase happi-
ness, although there are decreasing returns to the psychic
benefits (e.g., giving to charity may become more difficult
as the amount given becomes a very large percentage of the
person’s available wealth).
Standard of living
Standard of living results from consumption, but it is also
affected by several other factors, including pollution, wars
and global conflict, environmental sacrifice and aid to
poorer countries. Specifically we have:
S ¼ C  aS C2  P  W  X  A ð2Þ
where S is standard of living, C is consumption, P is
pollution (including other negative environmental effects,
such as global warming), W is the degree of wars and
global conflict, and aS is a (positive) decreasing returns
parameter. The effect of consumption on standard of living
has decreasing returns (e.g., consumption gets increasingly
difficult as it becomes a higher percentage of the consumer’s
income). Wars and global conflict also reduce the standard of
living, through such things as expenditures for armed conflict.
Environmental sacrifice and charitable aid also directly reduce
the standard of living.
The business
We assume that business seeks to maximize profits as
usual, but we also wish to include the sustainability
components of pollution taxes and expenditure on green
technology. The business’ objective is to choose the
expenditure on green technology that maximizes profits.
Corporate profit
Corporate profit results from the extent of consumption and
profit margins, and it is reduced by pollution taxes
4
Our decreasing returns formulations in Eqs. (1) and (2) are based on
prospect theory (Kahneman and Tversky 1979).
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2011) 39:40–54 49

Table 1 Notations used for the

variables Notation Variable

H Consumer’s happiness
S Standard of living
X Material sacrifice due to environmental awareness
A Charitable aid to poor nations
C Consumption
Cp Poor countries’ consumption level
P Pollution
W Degree of wars and global conflict
Π Corporate profit
G Expenditure on green technologies
aH Degree to which standard of living impacts happiness (i.e., materialism)
bH Degree to which environmental sacrifice impacts happiness (i.e., environmental awareness)
cH A decreasing returns parameter
dH Degree to which global charity impacts happiness (i.e., global awareness)
eH A decreasing returns parameter
aS A positive decreasing returns parameter
aΠ Profit margin on consumption
aP Production inefficiency
bP Efficiency of green technology
cP Decreasing returns parameter
aW Sensitivity of the global political environment to consumption inequity
bW Effectiveness of charitable aid in reducing conflict
cW Deceasing returns parameter

(including such things as carbon emission taxes) and
expenditures on green technology. The resulting equation is:
Π ¼ aΠ C  tP  G
where Π is corporate profit, G is expenditure on green
technologies, aΠ is the profit margin on consumption and t is
the rate by which pollution is taxed.
Global inequity in consumption
We assume that perceptions of consumption inequity
ð3Þ
between the rich and poor countries can lead to wars
and global conflict (W),6 but that charitable aid to the
poorer countries can help to ameliorate this. Specifically
we have:

2
Pollution and environmental damage W ¼ aW C  Cp  bW A þ cW A2 ð5Þ

Pollution and environmental damage result directly from
the consumption level but are increased by production
inefficiency and decreased by the use of green technologies.
We have:
P ¼ aP C  bP G þ cP G2
where aP reflects production inefficiency, bP is the
efficiency of green technology in reducing pollution, and
cP is a decreasing returns parameter5. The aP, bP and cP
parameters are all assumed to be positive.
where CP is the poor countries’ consumption level, aW
reflects the sensitivity of the global political environment
to consumption inequity, bw reflects the effectiveness of
charitable aid in reducing conflict, and cW is a decreasing
returns parameter. The parameters aW, bW and cW are all
ð4Þ
assumed to be positive. This equation says that as
consumption inequity increases, the extent of war and
global conflict increase. On the other hand, as charitable
aid to the poorer countries increases, wars and global
conflict decrease.

5 6
We assume decreasing returns here because pollution savings are Many factors other than perceived consumption inequality also are
certain to get tougher to achieve as pollution is decreased (the low important causes of conflict and wars, but we omit them from this
hanging fruit has been picked). formulation for reasons of parsimony and focus.
50 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2011) 39:40–54

Results awareness increases, the environmental sacrifice will be

greater.
In this section we provide the solution for the model
presented in the previous section, and then investigate that Charitable aid to poorer countries
solution to derive some important results connecting
sustainability to consumption. All non-obvious derivations The optimal level of charitable aid to poorer countries is:
appear in the Appendix.
A» ¼ faH ðbW  2cW  1Þ þ dH g=2eH ð11Þ
Consumption levels
We now explore how the level of charitable aid should be
The optimal consumption level is: affected by other variables related to consumption and

sustainability.
C» ¼ 1  aP þ 2aW Cp =ð2ðaS þ aW ÞÞ ð6Þ
Materialism
We can get a better sense for the meaning of this by
exploring how the optimal consumption level changes with
We note that:
respect to the parameters in the model.
@A»=@aH ¼ ðbW  2cW  1Þ=2eH > 0ðif bW > 2cW þ 1Þ
Sensitivity to consumption inequity
ð12Þ
We find that: Thus, materialism can have either a positive or negative

  impact on the optimal level of aid to poorer countries. If aid
@C»=@aW ¼ 2Cp aS þ aP  1 = 2ðaS þ aW Þ2 < 0 ð7Þ is effective enough (if bW is large enough) then more
materialism actually leads to higher levels of aid.
which says that as sensitivity to consumption inequity
increases, consumption in the richer countries should Aid effectiveness
decrease.
Because
Consumption by poorer countries
@A»=@bW ¼ aH =2eH > 0 ð13Þ
We have that: if aid is more effective then there should be more of it.
@C»=@Cp ¼ aW =ðaS þ aW Þ > 0 ð8Þ
Global awareness
This says that the greater the discrepancy between rich
country consumption and poor country consumption, the
It is seen from
less the rich countries should consume (as long as any
sensitivity to consumption inequity exists). @A»=@dH ¼ 1=2eH > 0 ð14Þ
that a higher level of global awareness leads to a higher
Production inefficiency
level of charitable aid.
We see that:
Expenditures on green technologies
@C»=@aP ¼ 1=ð2ðaS þ aW ÞÞ < 0 ð9Þ
The optimal level of expenditure on green technologies is:
This says that as production inefficiency increases, con-
sumption should decrease. G» ¼ ðtbP  1Þ=ð2tcP Þ ð15Þ
It is easy to see from this that a higher level of green
Environmental sacrifice
technology efficiency (bP) leads to a greater use of green
technology. The effect of pollution taxes is seen from:
The optimal level of environmental sacrifice is:


X» ¼ ðaH þ bH Þ=2cH ð10Þ @G»=@t ¼ 1= 2t2 cP > 0 ð16Þ

This means that as materialism increases, the level of from which we see that higher pollution taxes will produce
environmental sacrifice will be less, and as environmental a higher expenditure on green technologies.
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2011) 39:40–54
Discussion
Our analytical results provide normative implications for
consumers and firms to act consistently with sustainability.
While a majority of sustainability research resolves the
dilemma by relaxing the assumption of neoclassical
economics to allow altruistic motives and regulation for
distribution fairness, our approach demonstrates that such
an assumption relaxation may not be necessary.
Consumption levels
Consumers in rich countries should consume less if the
world is sensitive to the consumption inequity between the
rich and poorer countries, the production is inefficient, and
the utility from additional consumption is less. Hence,
when there exists substantial consumption inequity, as
captured by poor countries’ consumption level, Cp, and
the global political environment is sensitive to this
consumption inequity, aw, then consumers in rich countries
should consume less. It has been recognized that consumers
are willing to limit expenditures on goods and services to
reduce the growing social inequities that characterize global
consumption (Pepper et al. 2009).
We also find that inequity sensitivity can be a powerful
moderator for consumption inequity. Equity sensitivity is
how individuals react in consistent but individually differ-
ent ways to perceived equity and inequity because they
have different preferences for equity (Huseman et al. 1987).
The more sensitive the world is to inequity, the less
consumers in rich countries should consume, to alleviate
the inequity.
This result also suggests that firms should not take
advantage of this inequity (which inevitably correlates with
a lower wage rate) to maintain their production inefficiency.
For example, offshoring and outsourcing are often used by
firms as means to move their environmentally inefficient
production to poorer countries in order to continue
profitability. Our theory suggests that such a strategy may
not be sustainable, if the world is becoming flatter and
reaching a higher level of sensitivity to consumption
inequity. There is evidence that substantial numbers of
people in affluent societies are questioning the growing
social inequalities that characterize global consumption,
and are choosing to make changes in their lifestyles that
entail consuming less (Pepper et al. 2009). Such frugal
consumer behavior (frugality) has direct impact on con-
sumers’ consumption level and thus impact on firms’
profits (Flatters and Willmott 2009).
We find that as sensitivity to consumption inequity
increases, consumption in the richer countries should
51
decrease. In reality it is likely to be the case that the greater
the consumption discrepancy between rich and poor
countries, the less the consumers in rich countries may
be aware of the inequity (because of socioeconomic
segregation) and therefore the easier for firms to take
advantage of this inequity. This result suggests that it is
important for policy makers to educate consumers about
the existence of consumption inequity, and then the
sensitivity to inequity will operate as an effective means
to curb any opportunistic behavior from firms to take
advantage of this inequity.
Also, as production inefficiency increases, a higher level
of pollution is associated with a given consumption level.
The higher degree of pollution harms the standard of living
of consumers, and thus acts as a brake on consumption.
Charitable aid to poorer countries
We posit that materialism enhances the relationship
between standard of living and happiness. Those consumers
who are more materialistic believe standard of living
would lead to happiness, and if standard of living is
harmed by global conflict, materialistic consumers can be
especially sensitive to global conflict, which encourages
efforts to reduce global conflict, such as charitable aid to
reduce consumption inequity. Thus, if charitable aid is
effective enough in reducing consumption inequity, a
higher degree of materialism should promote a higher
level of charitable aid.
It is also equally important to enhance the linkage
between global charity and happiness. When rich country
consumers believe charitable aid increases their own
happiness, which does not necessary depend on consumers
as being more altruistic but can simply be because
consumers believe the charitable aid is effective in reducing
consumption inequity, then an awareness of global inequity
can lead to charitable aid. This suggests to policy makers
the importance of promoting global awareness, which can
augment the impact of charitable aid to alleviate global
inequity.
Adoption of green technologies
The results from Eqs. (15) and (16) show that firms will
adopt more green technologies voluntarily if those technol-
ogies are more efficient, or firms will adopt green
technologies simply because without doing so the pollution
taxes will increase production costs directly.
These results shed some light on the mixed results of
whether environmental practices improve firms’ financial
performance. Efficient green technologies contribute to firm
52
profits by producing goods and services that better meet
consumers’ needs. The benefits of green technologies may
outperform the cost of such technologies. It has been
suggested that environmental programs can improve
operational efficiencies, create new technologies, achieve
early-mover competitive advantages, and increase profits
(Stafford and Hartman 1998; Johnson 2009). For example, it
has been noted that the most socially responsible companies
in the CRO 100 Best Corporate Citizens List (Corporate
Responsibility Officer 2009) also enjoy 26% higher returns
than competitors, even in economic downturns.
Alternatively, inefficient green technologies or the
inefficient use of green technologies reduce firm profits
because the costs of such technologies may outweigh their
benefits. For example, Engardio et al. (2007) use British
Petroleum (BP) as an example to illustrate that social and
environmental practices are not a panacea for poor
management. BP has been consistently ranked high in most
sustainability indexes, yet it was beset by several safety
problems in 2005–2007 that made its stock price underper-
form its less green competitors.
Implications for government
Although we did not directly model government decision
making, we can draw some conclusions about govern-
ment policy from the results of our model. We find that
government can promote sustainability through the use of
taxation on the negative effects of consumption, such as
pollution. This proposal is made based on the consider-
ation of not just the direct tax effect on firms’ production
costs, but also the indirect tax effect that redirects
consumers’ preferences to more affordable green goods
and services.
Doing so can shift the optimal behavior of business.
Business will be more cognizant of pollution because of a
direct effect on the bottom line—resulting in more usage of
green technology. Also, although we did not formally
model price in our theoretical development, economic
theory suggests that a higher level of pollution taxes will
increase production costs, likely leading to an increase in
price and a decrease in consumption.
Conclusion
We explore how sustainability affects consumption, taking
into consideration the three pillars of sustainability—
environment, economy, and social justice. Our findings
provide important implications for consumers, private
business and public policy from a consumption perspective.
Consumers, once they realize the negative effects of global
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2011) 39:40–54
consumption inequity, should be willing to consume less to
reduce the inequity, as a matter of self-interest. Materialistic
consumers believe standard of living can lead to happiness,
yet they are also sensitive to the loss of standard of living
caused by global conflict. We find that the poorer the poor
countries are, or the more sensitive the global environment
is to inequality, the less the consumers in rich countries
should consume.
We note that these apparently altruistic and selfless
consumption decisions can arise even if consumers and
firms are motivated only by self-interest. We also find that
materialism can amplify the degree to which a wealthy
consumer or society limits consumption. Government can
further accelerate these effects through taxation and other
incentives. The surest route to a more sustainable future
is to mobilize the informed self-interest of consumers,
societies and firms to drive appropriate consumption levels
and expenditures on green technologies.
Appendix
Consumption level
We find the level of consumption, C*, that maximizes
happiness, H. This is obtained as follows:
@H=@C ¼ aH ð@S=@CÞ ¼ aH ½1  2aS C  ð@P=@C

 Þ  ð@W=@CÞ ¼
¼ aH 1  2aS C  aP
 2aW C  Cp ¼ 0 when
C» ¼ 1  aP þ 2aW Cp =ð2ðaS þ aW ÞÞ
@ 2 H=@C2 ¼ 2aH ðaS þ aW Þ < 0; ensuring the C» provides a maximum:
ðA1Þ
Sensitivity to consumption inequity To determine the sign of

 
@C»=@aW ¼ 2Cp aS þ aP  1 = 2ðaS þ aW Þ2 ðA2Þ
we first note that C > Cp which means that


1  aP þ 2aW Cp =ð2ðaS þ aW ÞÞ > Cp ðA3Þ
from which we obtain 0 > 2Cp aS þ aP  1, from which (7)
follows.
Environmental sacrifice
The level of environmental sacrifice, X*, that maximizes
happiness is obtained as:
@H=@X ¼ aH ð@S=@XÞ þ bH  2cH X ¼ aH þ bH  2cH X ¼ 0 when
X» ¼ ðaH þ bH Þ=2cH
@ 2 H=@X2 ¼ 2cH < 0; ensuring that X»provides a maximum:
ðA4Þ
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2011) 39:40–54
Charitable aid to poorer countries
The level of charitable aid to poor countries that maximizes
happiness is:
@H=@A ¼ aH ð@S=@AÞ þ dH  2eH A
¼ aH ðð@W=@AÞ  1Þ þ dH  2eH A ¼
¼ aH ðbW  2CW  1Þ þ dH  2eH A ¼ 0 when
A» ¼ faH ðbW  2cW  1Þ þ dH g=2eH
@ H=@A2 ¼ 2eH < 0; which means we have a maximum:
2 on others promotes happiness. Science, 319, 21–25.
ðA5Þ
Adoption of green technology
The level of green technology that maximizes profits can be
found as:
@Π=@G ¼ tð@P=@GÞ  1 ¼ tbP  2tcP G  1 ¼ 0 when
G» ¼ ðtbP  1Þ=ð2tcP Þ
@ Π=@G2 ¼ 2tcp < 0; ensuring a maximum:
2 Associated Press, Saturday, November 27. http://www.google.
ðA6Þ
References
Aasness, J., & Larsen, E. R. (2003). Distributional effects of
environmental taxes on transportation. Journal of Consumer
Policy, 26(3), 279–300.
Arthy, S. (2009). Momentum for success at climate summit. Sky
News, Sky.com, US News Editor, Port of Spain, Trinidad, UK,
28 November.
Barkin, J. S. (1998). The evolution of the constitution of sovereignty
and the emergence of human rights norms. Millenium, 27
(Summer), 229–252.
Barnett, C., Cafaro, P., & Newholm, T. (2005). Philosophy and ethical
consumption. In R. Harrison, T. Newholm, & D. Shaw (Eds.),
The ethical consumer (pp. 11–24). London: Sage.
Barratt-Brown, M. (1993). Fair trade: Reform and realities in the
international trading system. London: Zed Books.
Baumol, W. J. (1972). On taxation and the control of externalities.
American Economic Review, 62(3), 307–322.
Belk, R. W. (1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material
world. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 265–280.
Berenger, V., & Verdier-Chouchane, A. (2007). Multidimensional
measures of well-being: Standard of living and quality of life
across countries. World Development, 35(7), 1259–1276.
Boyd, C. (2001). Sustainability is good business. OECD Observer,
September, p.35. http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/printpage.
php/aid/546/Sustainability_is_good_business.html.
Carrier, J. G. (2007). Ethical consumption. Anthropology Today, 23, 1–2.
Clark, A., Etile, F., Postel-Vinay, F., Senik, C., & Van der Straeten, K.
(2005). Heterogeneity in reported well-being: Evidence from
twelve European countries. The Economic Journal, 115(502),
C118–C132.
Cohen, B., & Winn, M. I. (2007). Market imperfections, opportunity
and sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing,
22(1), 29–49.
Corporate Responsibility Officer (2009). 100 best corporate citizens
2009—full story. http:// www.thecro.com/100best09.
53
Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations.
Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 37–52.
Day, R. L. (1978). Beyond social indicators: Quality of life at the
individual level. In F. D. Reynolds & H. C. Barksdale (Eds.),
Marketing and the quality of life (pp. 11–18). Chicago: American
Marketing Association.
Dierksmeier, C., & Pirson, M. (2009). Oikonomia versus chrematis-
tike: Learning from Aristotle about the future orientation of
business management. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 417–430.
Dunn, E. W., Aknin, L. B., & Norton, M. I. (2008). Spending money
Easterlin, R. A. (2000). The worldwide standard of living since 1800.
The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(1), 7–26.
Engardio, P, Capell, K., Kerry, J., & Hall, K. (2007). Beyond the green
corporation. Business Week, 29 January, 50–64.
Feldman, L. P. (1971). Societal adaptation: A new challenge for
marketing. Journal of Marketing, 35, 54–60.
Fisher, G. M. (2007). An overview of recent work on standard budgets
in the United States and other Anglophone countries. Online paper,
January. http://www.aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/papers/std-budgets/.
Flatters, P., & Willmott, M. (2009). Understanding the post-recession
consumer. Harvard Business Review, 106–112 (July-August).
Fox, B. (2009). Climate debate heats up Caribbean summit.
com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hMngtnyb69v5U96jDSem
6I5cT0vwD9C7PM1G0.
Hawken, P., Lovins, A., & Lovins, L. H. (1999). Natural capitalism:
Creating the next industrial revolution. Snowmass, CO: Rocky
Mountain Institute.
Hetrick, W. (1989). The ideology of consumerism: A critique. In R.
Bagozzi & J. P. Peter (Eds.), Proceedings of the American
Marketing Association Winter Conference (pp. 287–296).
Orlando: American Marketing Association.
Horn, R. V. (1976). Assessment of living levels—the social indicator
approach. Paper delivered to the 47th Congress of the Australian
and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science
(ANZAAS), Hobart.
Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1987). A new
perspective on equity theory: The equity sensitivity construct.
Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 222–234.
Jackson, T. (2000). The employment and productivity effects of
environmental taxation: Additional dividends or added distrac-
tions? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43
(3), 389–406.
Jacobsen, R. (1991). Economic efficiency and the quality of life.
Journal of Business Ethics, 10(3), 201–209.
Johnson, R. L. (2009). Organizational motivations for going green or
profitability versus sustainability. The Business Review, 13(1),
22–28.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of
decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.
Kilbourne, W., McDonagh, P., & Prothero, A. (1997). Sustainable
consumption and the quality of life: A macromarketing challenge
to the dominant social paradigm. Journal of Macromarketing, 17
(1), 4–24.
Kilbourne, W. E. (2004). Sustainable communication and the
dominant social paradigm: Can they be integrated? Marketing
Theory, 4(3), 187–208.
Layard, R. (2005). Happiness and public policy: A challenge to the
profession. Working paper, March.
Leelakulthanit, O., Day, R., & Walters, R. (1991). Investigating the
relationship between marketing and overall satisfaction with life
in a developing country. Journal Macromarketing, 11(1), 3–23.
Lewis, T. L. (2003). Environmental aid: Driven by recipient need or
donor interests? Social Science Quarterly, 84(1), 144–161.
54
Lowe, I. (1998). Producing a better world: Theory, education, and
consulting. The American Behavioral Scientist, 42(3), 531–538.
Martinsons, M. G., Leung, A. K. Y., & Loh, C. (1996). Technology
transfer for sustainable development environmentalism and
entrepreneurship in Hong Kong. International Journal of Social
Economics, 23(9), 69–96.
McDonald, S., Oates, C., Thyne, M., Alevizou, P., & McMorland, L.-A.
(2009). Comparing sustainable consumption patterns across product
sectors. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33, 137–145.
Menon, A., & Menon, A. (1997). Enviropreneurial marketing strategy:
The emergence of corporate environmentalism as market strategy.
Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 51–67.
Menon, A., Menon, A., Chowdhury, J., & Jankovich, J. (1999).
Evolving paradigm for environmental sensitivity in marketing
programs: a synthesis of theory and practice. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 7(2), 1–15.
Muncy, J. A., & Eastman, J. K. (1998). Materialism and consumer ethics:
An exploratory study. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(2), 137–145.
Norcia, V. D., & Tigner, J. (2000). Mixed motives and ethical
decisions in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 25(1), 1–13.
Opotow, S., & Weiss, L. (2000). Denial and the process of moral
exclusion in environmental conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 56
(3), 475–490.
O’Riordan, T. (2009). On the politics of sustainability a long way
ahead. Environment, 51(2), 40–43.
Ottman, J. A., Stafford, E. R., & Hartman, C. L. (2006). Avoiding
green marketing myopia. Environment, 48(5), 22–37.
Paim, L. (1995). Definitions and measurements of well-being: A
review of literature. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement,
21, 297–309.
Paramio, J. L., & Zofío, J. L. (2008). Labor market duality and leisure
industries in Spain: Quality of life versus standard of living. The
American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 67(4), 683.
Peattie, K., & Collins, A. (2009). Guest editorial: Perspectives on
sustainable consumption. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 33, 107–112.
Pepper, M., Jackson, T., & Uzzell, D. (2009). An examination of the
values that motivate socially conscious and frugal consumer
behaviors. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33, 126–
136.
Rasche, A., Baur, D., Huijstee, M., Ladek, S., Naidu, J., Perla, C., et
al. (2008). Corporate as political actors—a report on the first
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2011) 39:40–54
Swiss master class in corporate social responsibility. Journal of
Business Ethics, 80, 151–173.
Rees, W. E. (2001). Economics and sustainability: Conflict or
convergence? An ecological economics perspective. StatsCan
Economic Conference, Ottawa, Ontario, June.
Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation
for materialism and its measurement: Scale development and
validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), 303–316.
Selim, S. (2008). Life satisfaction and happiness in Turkey. Social
Indicator Research, 88, 541–562.
Sen, A. K. (1987). The standard of living: Lecture I, concepts and
critiques. In A. Sen, & G. Hawthorn (Eds.), The standard of
living (pp. 1–19). Cambridge University Press.
Sirgy, M. J. (1998). Materialism and quality of life. Social Indicators
Research, 43(3), 227–260.
Stafford, E. R., & Hartman, C. L. (1998). Toward an understanding of
the antecedents of environmentalist-business cooperative rela-
tions. American Marketing Association Conference Proceedings,
9, 56–73.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Kaloff, L., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). Values,
beliefs, and pro-environmental action: attitude formation toward
emergent attitude objects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
25(18), 1611–1636.
Strong, C. (1997). The problems of translating fair trade principles
into consumer purchase behavior. Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, 15(1), 32–37.
Thogersen, J., & Crompton, T. (2009). Simple and painless? The
limitations of spillover in environmental campaigning. Journal of
Consumer Policy, 32(2), 141–163.
Trentmann, F. (2007). Citizenship and consumption. Journal of
Consumer Culture, 7(2), 147–158.
United Nations (1987). Report of the World Commission on
Environment and Development. General Assembly 42/187, 11th
December 1987. http://www.un-documents.net/a42r187.htm.
United Nations Human Development Reports (2009). Overcoming
barriers: Human mobility and development. http://hdr.undp.org/
en/reports/global/hdr2010/.
Vanderschraaf, P. (1999). Hume’s game-theoretic business ethics.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(1), 47–67.
Varul, M. Z. (2008). Consuming the campesino: Fair trade marketing
between recognition and romantic commodification. Cultural
Studies, 22, 654–679.