Enviropreneurial Marketing Strategy: The Emergence of Corporate Environmentalism as
Market Strategy
Author(s): Ajay Menon and Anil Menon
Source:
Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 61, No. 1 (Jan., 1997), pp. 51-67
Published by: American Marketing Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1252189 .
Accessed: 02/12/2013 12:55
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Marketing.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 152.3.152.120 on Mon, 2 Dec 2013 12:55:28 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ajay
Menon &
Anil
Menon
Enviropreneurial
Marketing
Strategy:
The
Emergence
of
Corporate
Environmentalism
as
Market
Strategy
Environmental
concerns
have
begun
to
reshape
the
landscape
in
which
global
organizations compete.
The
demands
and
influences of
the
environmental movement are
evident
in
the
dollar value
size of the
environmentally
conscious
marketplace.
In
addition,
the
growing
regulatory
concerns
over the
environmental
impact
of
corporate
practices
have
begun
to
influence
corporate
strategies.
The
authors
discuss the
concept
of
an
enviropreneurial
marketing
strategy,
which
reflects the
confluence of
social
performance
goals, corporate
entrepreneurship
orienta-
tions,
and
marketing
strategy by
integrating
environmental
concerns
when
developing marketing
policies
and
prac-
tices.
They
provide
a brief
overview of
the
emergence
of
the
enviropreneurial
strategy
paradigm, identify
three
types
of
enviropreneurial
marketing
strategies,
and
develop
a
model of the
antecedents
and
consequences
of
an
enviro-
preneurial
marketing
strategy.
Finally,
they
conclude with
a brief
discussion
of
future
research
needs.
he
natural
and
physical
environment,
traditionally
dis-
cussed as an
external
influence on
the
process
and
content
of
managerial
decision
making,
is
now
viewed as
central
to
marketing
and
management
strategy
(Drumwright 1994;
Hart
1995;
Shrivastava
1994).
Although
the
idea of
integrating
environmental
issues into
the
process
and the
content of
marketing
strategy
is
not new
(see
Henion
and
Kinnear
1976;
Kassarjian
1971),
the
idea
of
integrating
has
moved
into
mainstream
marketing
consciousness
over
the
past
ten
years
(cf.
Drumwright
1994;
McDaniel
and
Rylander
1993;
Sheth
and
Parvartiyar
1995).
Similarly,
finns have
already
begun
incorporating
environmental
crite-
ria
and/or
environmental
elements
into their
marketing
strategies
to
remain
competitive
in
the
marketplace
(cf.
Drumwright
1994;
Kirkpatrick
1990;
Mason
1993).
Con-
sider
the
following
developments
within the
investment,
competitive,
and
regulatory
arenas
that
have
made
environ-
mental
concerns
real and
immediate for
businesses.
There
is now
a
general
consensus
within
the
business
and
consumer
communities that
the
environmental or
so-
Ajay
Menon
is
Assistant
Professor of
Marketing,
College
of
Business
Administration,
Colorado
State
University.
Anil
Menon is
Assistant
Profes-
sor of
Marketing,
Goizueta
Business
School,
Emory
University.
The
listing
of
the
authors
is
alphabetical
and
reflects
equal
contribution.
The
authors
thank
Sundar
Bharadwaj,
Connie
Kertz,
and Atul
Parvartiyar
(Emory
Uni-
versity);
Bernard J.
Jaworski
(University
of
Southern
California);
and
Phani
Tej
Adidam,
Steve
Edison,
and
Jim
Walton
(Texas
Tech
University),
for
their
insightful
comments on
previous
versions of
this
article.
They
also
thank
Richard
E.
Rienwart
and
Lori
Lopez (Colorado
State
University)
for
their
able
research
assistance.
This
research was
funded
by
the
Market-
ing Department
at
Colorado
State
University.
The
authors
express
their
appreciation
to
the
current and
previous
editors
and
three
anonymous
JM
reviewers for
their
helpful
comments on
earlier
drafts of the
article
called
green
market
appears
to be
real
and
growing
(Cod-
dington
1993;
Fierman
1991;
Kirkpatrick
1990).
For
exam-
ple,
Arthur D.
Little
estimates
it at
$280
billion
worldwide,
with
the
potential
to
double
by
the
end
of
this
decade
(Schmidheiny
and
Business
Council
for
Sustainable
Devel-
opments
1992;
hereinafter
Schmidheiny).
Also,
consumer
surveys
over
the
past
decade
reveal a
growing
segment
of
consumers
who
either
reward or
intend to
reward
firms
that
address
environmental
concerns in
their
business
and
mar-
keting practices
and
who
punish
firms
that
appear
to
ignore
the
environmental
imperatives
(Carlson,
Grove,
and
Kangun
1993).
Parallel to
these
product
and
market
influences,
com-
panies
are
now
increasingly
subject
to
a
new
form
of
investor
influence,
namely,
social
investing
(Labadie
1991).
Social
investing
involves
integrating
social
values
into
investment
choices
and
is
now
estimated
to be
a
$500
billion
influence.
One
such
investor
group
focusing
on
corporate
environmentalism
is
the
Coalition
for
Environmentally
Responsible
Economies
(CERES),
which
was
formed
in
1989,
and
represents
over
$160
billion
in
total
investment
power
(Van
Buren
1994).
This
group aligns
with
major
cor-
porations
that
endorse
the
CERES
principles,1
a
set
of
envi-
ronmental
principles
for
integrating
environmental
account-
ability
and
performance
into
business
practices.
Most
analyses
of
the
environmental
regulatory
environ-
ment
point
to
the
continuance
and
even
the
expansion
of
environmentally
based
laws
(Noah
1995).
On the
basis
of
new
theoretical
insights
and
empirical
evidence,
an
emerg-
ing
view
within
the
business, academic,
and
regulatory
com-
'Originally
called
the
Valdez
principles,
CERES
principles
are
a
ten-point
code
for
corporations'
environmental
performance
and
accountability.
Journal of
Marketing
Vol.
61
(January 1997),
51-67
Enviropreneurial
Marketing
/ 51
This content downloaded from 152.3.152.120 on Mon, 2 Dec 2013 12:55:28 PM
All use subject to
JSTOR Terms and Conditions
munities
contends
that environmental
regulations
enhance
rather than
hurt
competitiveness
and
firm
performance
(Cohen,
Fenn,
and
Naimon
1995;
Jaffe
et al.
1995;
Porter
1991;
Porter
and
van
der
Linde
1995).
Coupled
with
changes
in the federal laws
that reward
firms that
overcom-
ply
with environmental
regulations
(GAO
Reports
1995)
and
punish
senior executives
for
environmental
violations
of
subordinates
(Vogel
1992),
environmental
issues
have
gained
"mission
critical"
importance
within firms. This
new
importance
is reflected
in a
McKinsey
survey
of chief
exec-
utive officers
(CEOs)
and
board members
in which 92%
of
the
respondents
stated
that
the environment
is one of
their
top
three
management
priorities
for this
decade
(Walley
and
Whitehead
1994).2
Against
this
backdrop,
the need for
more research
on
and discussion of the
role of the
natural
environment3
in
marketing
strategy
and
firm
performance
is critical.
Although
the literature has been
relatively
silent on
the
inte-
gration
of nonmarket
(e.g.,
social)
issues
and the
content of
marketing strategy
(Robin
and Reidenbach
1987;
Varadara-
jan
and
Menon
1988),
recent works
by Drumwright
(1994)
and
Varadarajan
(1992)
offer
interesting insights.
Drawing
on
rich
case
histories,
Drumwright
documents
the
preva-
lence and
importance
of noneconomic
criteria,
especially
the
environment,
in
corporate
decision
making. Drumwright
provides
useful
insights
into the role of
individuals
in
devel-
oping
different
ecological
orientations
within
organizations.
Varadarajan
proposes
the
term
enviropreneurial
marketing
to
emphasize
the need for an
entrepreneurial approach
in
melding
ecological
concerns
and
marketing strategy objec-
tives. Both scholars call for theoretical
and
empirical
research into
questions
such
as,
What factors motivate
indi-
viduals,
managers,
and/or firms to
adopt
an
enviropreneurial
orientation? and
What kinds
of
enviropreneurial strategies
would
enable a
firm to
achieve
a
competitive
advantage
in
the
marketplace?
Our
purpose
is to
help
address
the theoretical
aspects
of
the
previous questions
and
provide
a testable model
for fur-
ther research.
In
particular,
our
goal
is to
identify
the
antecedents and
consequences
of
enviropreneurial
market-
ing
strategies.
To that
end,
this article is
organized
around
the
following
major
sections:
First,
we
draw
on extant
research in environmental
history,
environmental econom-
ics,
and environmental law to
provide
an
overview of how
the
enviropreneurial strategy paradigm emerged.
Second,
we
identify
three
types
of
enviropreneurial marketing
strate-
gies by drawing
on
(1)
published
case histories of environ-
mentally
based market
strategies
and
(2)
in-depth
interviews
with
managers,
portfolio
managers
for
socially
responsible
funds,
and
an
environmental
journalist.
Third,
we
develop
a
framework
of
the antecedents
and
consequences
of enviro-
preneurial
marketing strategies.
Fourth,
we conclude
with
a
brief discussion of future research
needs.
2Similar
findings
are
reported by
Kanter
(1991).
3For
ease of
communication,
unless
specified
otherwise,
the
terms
environment,
environmental,
and
environmentally
based
refer
to
the natural and
physical
environment.
Emergence
of
the
Enviropreneurial
Marketing
Strategy4
Although
corporate
environmentalism
is
a
relatively
recent
phenomenon,
its
scope
and
influence
are
being
felt
through-
out
the business
and academic
communities.
Environmental
historians
trace the
birth
of modem
environmental
activism
in the United
States to
1962,
the
year
Rachel
Carson's
book,
The
Silent
Spring,
was
published
(cf.
Adler
1995;
Sale
1993;
Worster
1993).
Since
then,
the
rubric
of environmentalism
has
firmly
linked the
physical
environment
to
social
change
and
social
justice.
Subsequently,
we
develop
the
emergence
of the
enviropreneurial
marketing
strategy paradigm.
Draw-
ing
on
research
in environmental
history
(Adler
1995;
Sch-
abecoff
1993;
Worster
1993),
environmental
law
(Calvo
y
Gonzales
1981),
and
corporate
environmentalism
(Cairn-
cross
1992;
Fischer and
Schot
1993;
Schmidheiny
1992;
Stroup,
Neubert,
and Anderson
1987;
Walley
and
Whitehead
1994),
we
identify
four
phases
in
ecological marketing
lead-
ing
to the
emergence
of
enviropreneurial
marketing.
Environmental
Issues Are Not
a Driver of
Marketing Strategy
The natural environment
did not have a
significant impact
on the
practice
of
marketing
until
the 1970s.
The reasons
for
this
limited
impact
range
from environmental
regulations
being
limited in
scope
and
influence
to
society being
ambiguous
with
respect
to environmentalism
and
corporate
social
responsibility.
Environmental
regulations
during
the
1950s
and 60s
were
generally
viewed as weak
(Sale
1993).
Most
of the
regulations passed during
this
period
(e.g.,
Wilderness
Act of
1964,
Air
Quality
Act of
1967)
did
not
carry noncompliance
penalties
and were
relegated
to the
local and state
agencies
with
little federal
oversight
(Davies
and Davies
1975)-all
of which
added
to the
perception
that
these
regulations
were mere
guidelines
for
improvement,
rather
than
major corporate imperatives.
Thus,
there
was no
coercive or
other
regulatory
influence
motivating ecologi-
cally
oriented
marketing
strategies
or tactics.
The
concept
of
environmentalism,
that
is,
the
concern
for the
reciprocal impact
of humans and
nature,
was not
established as a mainstream idea until the 1970s.
Prior to
the
1960s,
environmental concerns
were
limited to
the
pas-
sionate
writings
of
conservationists
(Leopold
1949),
and
the issue had not
gained
the
status of a
movement
(Hays
1987;
Sale
1993).
Environmentalism was seen
by
the main-
stream
public
as a
concern
of
sportspeople,
naturalists,
and
the affluent not connected to
everyday
life
(Sale
1993;
Tucker
1990;
Worster
1993).
Because of this low
public
and societal interest
in
environmental
issues,
most
firms
placed
little
importance
on the role of the
natural environ-
ment
in
developing marketing
strategies
and
guiding
busi-
ness decisions.
At a
more
fundamental
level,
it
is
important
to
recognize
that not
only
was
corporate
social
responsibility
a
relatively
new
notion,
commitment to this idea
was
equivocal
within
the business
community.
Consequently,
and
not
surprisingly,
4The term
enviropreneurship
was coined
by Terry
Clark,
Goizueta Business
School,
Emory University.
52/ Journal of
Marketing, January
1997
This content downloaded from 152.3.152.120 on Mon, 2 Dec 2013 12:55:28 PM
All use subject to
JSTOR Terms and Conditions
specific
social
goals,
such as
reducing
the
negative
impact
of
business
activities on
the
environment,
were
not seen
by
businesses
as relevant
in
developing
marketing
strategies.
Academic
interest
with
respect
to the
impact
of business
activities
on nature was restricted
to those
with liberal
polit-
ical
leanings
(e.g., Boulding
1966).
As
these
academics
framed
the
issue-green
versus
greed
and conservation
ver-
sus
consumption-environmental
interests
and business
interests
(and
profits)
were
essentially
irreconcilable
(Porter
1993).
As
a
result,
the business
community
viewed these
debates as
antibusiness,
anti-industrialization,
and
anticivi-
lization rhetoric.
Consequently,
businesses
either
rejected
the entire
concept
of
corporate
environmentalism
or
responded
in isolated instances
by
"voluntarily doing
good"
(Stroup,
Neubert,
and Anderson
1987;
Varadarajan
and
Menon
1988).
Environmentally
Based
Marketing
Strategy
as
Resistant
Adaptation
In the
1960s,
environmentalists
tried to
change
business
practices through public
opinion
and
pressure.
Considering
the failure
of
this
approach,
the environmental movement
shifted tactics
in the
1970s
and
replaced public
opinion
with
legal
pressure
as their
major
tool to
change
business
prac-
tices.
By
the
mid-1970s,
the
Big
Ten5
environmental
groups
reoriented
their
priorities
and
philosophy
to
practical
gains
rather than affirmation
of
ideologies
(Hays
1987).
As
a
result,
these
groups
gained
considerable
ground
in terms of
the
membership
clout
and financial
resources needed to
influence
legislation.
They
collaborated
with
congressional
allies
to create
powerful
agencies,
including
the Environ-
mental Protection
Agency,
the
Occupational
Safety
&
Health
Administration,
the
Consumer
Product
Safety
Com-
mission,
and
far-reaching
laws,
such as the
Endangered
Species
Act of 1973 and the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Act
(Superfund)
of 1980.
The laws
and
regulations approved
during
this
period
focused on
creating
mechanisms
and
provisions
to address
market
externalities,6
which created
an adversarial
relation-
ship
between
the
regulators,
environmentalists,
and busi-
nesses
(Adler
1995).
The laws became
known as command
and control or
end-of-pipe
laws because of
their exclusive
focus
on
the
inputs
to
manufacturing
and
the
technology
used
in
these
operations,
rather than on
the
outputs
or
out-
comes of these
operations
(Adler
1995).
For
example,
laws
were
passed
requiring
the use of
the
best available technol-
ogy
for
reducing
pollution
and emissions.
Yet,
attempts
at
defining
what
constitutes best available
technology
were
inconclusive,
and
the administrative
problems
associated
with
monitoring
and
documenting
the emissions of
hun-
5Audobon,
Defenders
of
Wildlife,
Environmental
Defense
Fund,
Environmental
Policy
Institute,
Izaak
Walton,
National
Wildlife,
Natural
Resources
Defense
Council,
National
Parks
Association,
Sierra
Club,
and Wilderness
Society
6Market
externalities are
the
unintended
consequences
of busi-
ness activities
(e.g.,
pollution
and
emissions).
Because
the envi-
ronment is
not
a
private good,
pricing
mechanisms are
incapable
of
capturing
them,
which
lowers the incentive
for businesses to make
investments to lower
negative
externalities
or increase
positive
externalities.
dreds and thousands of different
sources of
pollution
were
inordinate. More
important,
firms
argued
that such
strict
activity
and
compliance-oriented
regulations
limited
their
ability
to
respond
to
environmental issues
in
innovative
ways.
Not
surprisingly,
the nature and
scope
of
environmen-
tally
based
marketing
strategies
reflected this
ambivalence
and distrust
of the "environmental issue."
Nevertheless,
facing
this
growing governmental
regula-
tion and the
beginning
of a consumerism
movement,
firms
began
to
incorporate potential
and actual
environmental
impact
explicitly
as
one of their decision
criteria
(Sale
1993).
Thus,
the
period
from
1970 to 1985 saw the
begin-
ning
of the
integration,
albeit
weak,
of
environmental
con-
cerns and business and
marketing
strategies through
what
Fischer and Schot
(1993)
call resistant
adaptation,
or what
Varadarajan
and Menon
(1988)
call mandated
corporate
responsibility.
From a
strategic
perspective,
the
beginning
of
a
systematic
and coherent
approach
to
handling
environ-
mental
concerns
can be traced to
this
stage,
when
large
cor-
porations
created and staffed
specialized
departments
to
focus on
environmental
issues. Public
relations and
public-
ity began
to
play
a
bigger
role in a firm's
marketing
com-
munication
strategy
to
allay public
concerns to
mollify
and,
if
possible,
co-opt
interest
groups
and
regulatory
agencies.
Along
these
lines,
firms directed their research and
develop-
ment and
product management
efforts toward
developing
appropriate product
features to meet command
and con-
trol-type
regulations.
For
example,
in the automobile indus-
try,
manufacturers
built
defensive features for
emission con-
trol into
automobiles,
rather than make cars that were
inher-
ently nonpolluting
or more efficient.
Manifest
Environmentally
Based
Marketing
Strategy
In contrast
to
the defensive
and
narrow
perspective
of
the
resistant
adaptation phase,
manifest
environmentally
based
marketing
strategy
reflects a
broader
and more
proactive
stance with
respect
to
corporate
environmentalism
(Adler
1995;
Fischer and
Schot
1993).
This
expansion
of the nature
and
scope
of
corporate
environmentalism
resulted
from an
important development during
the
mid-1980s:
the
emergence
of
free
market
environmentalism
(Adler
1995;
Sale
1993).
Free market
environmentalism
developed
out
of
several
changes
in the
regulatory
philosophy
and the
environmental
movement. Much of
the
empirical
evidence on
the effective-
ness
of
the extant laws
and
regulations
suggested
indetermi-
nate
success,
at
best,
and
failure,
at
worst.
Coupled
with the
growth
of conservative
politics
and
a shift
in
political power,
the
rationale
and
approaches
of the traditional environmen-
tal
regulations
were
increasingly
viewed
by
scholars as inef-
ficient and
inadequate
(Adler
1995;
Hays
1987).
Free mar-
ket
environmentalism
shifted
the
emphasis
of the
regula-
tions
from
what was an
input
or
activity
orientation
to
an
output
or results orientation. This shift
of
emphasis
broad-
ened
the
context
for
environmental
marketing,
and
firms
began experimenting
with
alternate,
customized
strategies
and
approaches
to
resolve
their
environmental
problems
(cf.
Arora
and Cason
1995).
The
environmental movement also
changed
in two
sig-
nificant
ways
in
the
mid-1980s.
First,
it
adopted
a
profes-
Enviropreneurial
Marketing
/
53
This content downloaded from 152.3.152.120 on Mon, 2 Dec 2013 12:55:28 PM
All use subject to
JSTOR Terms and Conditions
sional
rather than an
ideological
philosophy.
Second,
as
adversaries
sought
new
ground
on which to become
allies,
the
relationship's
between
the environmentalists and
the law-
makers
changed
from
confrontational to accommodative
(Sale 1993).
The
major
environmental
groups
(Audobon,
Sierra
Club,
Environmental
Defense
Fund,
Greenpeace,
Wilderness
Society,
and Defenders of
Wildlife)
installed
new administrators.
These new administrators
were
hired
from outside
of
the
organizations
and all for their
manager-
ial,
legal,
and
professional
skills.
Thus, business,
lawmak-
ers,
and environmental
groups began
collaborating-seek-
ing
common
ground
and
pragmatic
solutions.7
Against
this
backdrop,
the tone
and
specificity
of
the
goals
and
objectives
outlined
in
corporate
directives
on the
environment
clearly
took a more
strategic
orientation
and
changed
from
the
narrow,
negative compliance
and
report-
ing
attitude reflected
in
earlier
corporate
directives
(Fischer
and Schot
1993;
Sale
1993).
Notwithstanding,
most
firms
still
approached
environmental concerns
as
problems
to be
resolved and constraints
to be
managed,
rather than as
mar-
ket
opportunities
to be
exploited
(Buchholz
1991).
In
other
words,
firms
adopting
some
form of an environmental
strat-
egy
considered alleviation
of their environmental
problems
as
the
major
reason
for
coaligning
their
marketing
and busi-
ness
strategies
with
environmental
issues. Few
firms saw
environmental
concerns
as
an
opportunity
to create
a
strate-
gic competitive advantage.
However,
in
the
late 1980s
and
early
1990s,
an
environmentally
based
marketing strategy
became a more
accepted
business
paradigm,
and more
firms
began explicit
integration
of environmental
issues into
their
strategy process
(Kirkpatrick
1990).
Establishment
of
Enviropreneurial Marketing
Strategy
An
interesting
business
development
in the
early
1990s
was
the
emergence
of a
new
strategic
environmental
paradigm
for which
Varadarajan
(1992)
coined the term
enviropre-
neurial
marketing
(EM).
We define
EM
as
the
process
for
formulating
and
implementing
entrepreneurial
and environ-
mentally
beneficial
marketing
activities
with the
goal
of
cre-
ating
revenue
by providing
exchanges
that
satisfy
a firm's
economic and
social
performance
objectives.
Thus,
the
themes
differentiating
EM from the other
environmentally
based
approaches
are
that
(1)
it
adopts
the
perspective
of
an
innovation and
technology
solution rather than one
of
a
legal
or
public
pressure
solution,
(2)
it
adopts
an
entrepre-
neurial
philosophy
or
orientation,
and
(3)
it
represents
a
confluence of social
performance,
environmental,
and
eco-
nomic
objectives.
First,
the basic
assumption driving
EM is that environ-
mental
degradation
is
the result of the
interaction of
human
experience,
technological
growth,
and
economic
develop-
ment. As
such,
these
same forces-rather
than
legal pres-
sure,
command
and control
laws,
and
increasing regula-
7This led
a
traditional
environmentalist
to
bemoan,
"There
is
too
much movement now
away
from the
ideals and too
much
empha-
sis on the bottom
line. The MBAs
are
taking
over
from
the
people
who have the dreams.
Do MBAs dream'?"
tions-should be
at
the root
of the
solution to these environ-
mental
problems.
In
contrast
to the
tendency
to
use
legal
and
public opinion pressure
to address environmental
problems,
environmental
technologies
and
technological
innovations
are
increasingly proposed
as
strategic
options
for
developing
competitive advantages
and
resolving
environmental
con-
cers
(Shrivastava
1995b).
Consistent with this
logic,
EM
posits
that
corporations
can
reduce environmental
problems
through
innovation
by
finding
new
ways
to
produce, pack-
age,
and deliver
goods
and
services to consumers and
dis-
posing
or
recycling
the wastes created
in the
production
or
consumption
of these
goods
or services
(Coddington
1993;
Mirvis
1994).
From a theoretical
perspective,
environmental
problems
are
being increasingly
reframed as economic
problems,
and research into these issues are conducted
within several research
streams in
ecological
economics
(e.g.,
Costanza and
Wainger
1991)
and industrial
ecology
(Craincross
1992;
Hawken
1992).
Second,
a
key concept
basic to the
process
of EM is
the
presence
of
a
corporate
entrepreneurship
philosophy
rather
than an administrative or
management approach (Burgleman
1983;
Stopford
and
Baden-Fuller
1994).
Consequently,
one
of the core values
guiding
EM is the
perspective
that
the
environmental
imperatives
can be market
opportunities
rather than
management
or business constraints
(Codding-
ton
1993;
Hunt
and Auster
1990).
Along
these
lines,
EM
activities
are
proactive
and
involve a
willingness
to
accept
measured risks
(Miller
1983;
Stopford
and Baden-Fuller
1994).
Risks of EM stem
from at least three sources.
One,
enviropreneurial
strategies
run
the
risk of
being
viewed
as
exploitative
and
deceptive
if
there exist
any gaps
or
per-
ceived
gaps
between
marketing
claims and environmental
realities
(Varadarajan
and
Menon
1988).
Two,
enviropre-
neurial
strategies
are also
risky,
because
though
the
green
market
appears
to
be
real,
consumer
preferences
are
not
well-defined
and their
preferences
and actions
may
not
always
seem to
be
in concert
(Fierman
1991).
Three,
because this market is
still
evolving,
the risks of market
pio-
neering
apply.
Third,
EM falls within the
rubric
of the societal market-
ing concept
and the
corporate
social
performance
model.
The
societal
marketing concept
articulates the
logic
that
marketers should balance
three considerations in
formulat-
ing
and
implementing
marketing strategies: company
prof-
its,
consumer needs and
satisfaction,
and
society's
interests
(Kotler
1994).
Cause-related
marketing (Varadarajan
and
Menon
1988)
is one
approach
employed by
firms to
inte-
grate
social
responsibility
into their
marketing
practices.
The
distinguishing
characteristic of cause-related
marketing
is the
explicit integration
of social
performance
goals
as
integral
to
achieving marketing goals
and
vice-versa.
So,
in
contrast to
corporate
charitable
giving,
cause-related mar-
keting
views social
objectives
as
part
of a
firm's
marketing
objective. Enviropreneurial
marketing
strategy
extends this
idea of
integrating
social
performance
objectives
and
mar-
keting
and
linking
them to an overall
cause,
the
environ-
ment,
rather than to
individual
not-for-profit organizations.
From
an environmental ethics
perspective,
the
integration
of
social
performance
and economic
objectives
creates
special
challenges
because
of the uncertainties
that
accompany
54/ Journal of
Marketing,
January
1997
This content downloaded from 152.3.152.120 on Mon, 2 Dec 2013 12:55:28 PM
All use subject to
JSTOR Terms and Conditions