IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/ijmark/v2022y2022i3d10.1007_s43039-022-00047-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How new sustainability typologies will reshape traditional approaches to loyalty

Author

Listed:
  • Neil Richardson

    (Leeds Beckett University)

Abstract

The benefits of segmentation and loyalty programmes are well established however Business-As-Usual (BAU) models, whether online or traditional, only focus on customers' contributions to the 'bottom line'. Sustainable Development (SD) is inextricably linked to consumers and whilst some studies allude to 'green' segmentation, there are no loyalty ladders or frameworks predicated on Elkington's Triple Bottom Line (TBL). This study aligns with those who think the TBL should be the thread that runs through sustainability research. It looks beyond the question of why firms adopt sustainability and instead consider how they do so by investigating the changes needed for loyalty models and frameworks. The paper is positioned in the overlap between the SD and marketing domains. It facilitates conceptualisation by addressing some of the terminological confusion inherent in sustainability studies. It provides a working definition of SD and a rationale for (and definition of) the preferred term Sustainable Marketing (SM). Assuming marketers want to work in a more sustainable fashion, they need to adapt existing models or adopt new versions. With adaptation representing a smaller change to marketers' modus operandi, it is deemed more likely to be adopted than a radical change. This is conceptualised using two schools of thought, namely the Developmental and Critical schools. This study is positioned in the critical school as it posits that the traditional models are no longer fit for purpose and need adapting or replacing. This approach provides better understanding of why sustainability models (or frameworks) are needed and the need to shape practice, thus going beyond academic theory. Then the paper is in two main sections; first it critiques the BAU building blocks needed for loyalty ladders, namely a marketing orientation and segmentation frameworks. This paper advocates improving loyalty by adopting sustainable building blocks. Hence the second section uses existing adaptations, namely a sustainable market orientation, a sustainable stakeholder typology and a TBL-based segmentation framework (APPROVES), to create a new TBL-based SM loyalty ladder. This will provide a platform for discussion and future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Neil Richardson, 2022. "How new sustainability typologies will reshape traditional approaches to loyalty," Italian Journal of Marketing, Springer, vol. 2022(3), pages 289-315, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:ijmark:v:2022:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s43039-022-00047-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s43039-022-00047-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s43039-022-00047-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s43039-022-00047-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steve Letza & Xiuping Sun & James Kirkbride, 2004. "Shareholding Versus Stakeholding: a critical review of corporate governance," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(3), pages 242-262, July.
    2. Kyle B. Murray & Gerald Hubl, 2007. "Explaining Cognitive Lock-In: The Role of Skill-Based Habits of Use in Consumer Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 34(1), pages 77-88, March.
    3. Agle, Bradley R. & Donaldson, Thomas & Freeman, R. Edward & Jensen, Michael C. & Mitchell, Ronald K. & Wood, Donna J., 2008. "Dialogue: Toward Superior Stakeholder Theory," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 153-190, April.
    4. Carla Coppola & Agostino Vollero & Francesca Conte & Alfonso Siano, 2020. "Self-production in an upcycling online community: shared knowledge, collaborative ideas and creation of value," Italian Journal of Marketing, Springer, vol. 2020(2), pages 231-248, September.
    5. Giuseppe Bertoli & Bruno Busacca & Marta Imperato, 2020. "Premium private label: how product value, trust and category involvement influence consumers willingness to buy," Italian Journal of Marketing, Springer, vol. 2020(2), pages 143-161, September.
    6. Porcu, Lucia & del Barrio-García, Salvador & Kitchen, Philip J. & Tourky, Marwa, 2020. "The antecedent role of a collaborative vs. a controlling corporate culture on firm-wide integrated marketing communication and brand performance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 435-443.
    7. Jung, Jaesuk & Kim, Sang Jin & Kim, Kyung Hoon, 2020. "Sustainable marketing activities of traditional fashion market and brand loyalty," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 294-301.
    8. Michelle Bonera & Anna Paola Codini & Giulia Miniero, 2020. "The great Millennials’ trouble: leading or confused green generation? An Italian insight," Italian Journal of Marketing, Springer, vol. 2020(4), pages 289-308, December.
    9. Gianluigi Guido & Cesare Amatulli & Alessandro M. Peluso & Clarissa Matteis & Luigi Piper & Giovanni Pino, 2020. "Measuring internalized versus externalized luxury consumption motivations and consumers’ segmentation," Italian Journal of Marketing, Springer, vol. 2020(1), pages 25-47, March.
    10. Brian Jones & Ryan Bowd & Ralph Tench, 2009. "Corporate irresponsibility and corporate social responsibility: competing realities," Social Responsibility Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 5(3), pages 300-310, July.
    11. Sanne, Christer, 2002. "Willing consumers--or locked-in? Policies for a sustainable consumption," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 273-287, August.
    12. Frank‐Martin Belz & Birte Schmidt‐Riediger, 2010. "Marketing strategies in the age of sustainable development: Evidence from the food industry," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(7), pages 401-416, November.
    13. Pacheco, Desirée F. & Dean, Thomas J. & Payne, David S., 2010. "Escaping the green prison: Entrepreneurship and the creation of opportunities for sustainable development," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 464-480, September.
    14. William Young & Kumju Hwang & Seonaidh McDonald & Caroline J. Oates, 2010. "Sustainable consumption: green consumer behaviour when purchasing products," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(1), pages 20-31.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wintschnig, Bea Alexandra, 2021. "The Attitude-Behavior Gap – Drivers and Barriers of Sustainable Consumption," Junior Management Science (JUMS), Junior Management Science e. V., vol. 6(2), pages 324-346.
    2. Cristina Longo & Avi Shankar & Peter Nuttall, 2019. "“It’s Not Easy Living a Sustainable Lifestyle”: How Greater Knowledge Leads to Dilemmas, Tensions and Paralysis," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(3), pages 759-779, February.
    3. Young, William & Middlemiss, Lucie, 2012. "A rethink of how policy and social science approach changing individuals' actions on greenhouse gas emissions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 742-747.
    4. Zhengxia He & Yanqing Zhou & Jianming Wang & Cunfang Li & Meiling Wang & Wenbo Li, 2021. "The impact of motivation, intention, and contextual factors on green purchasing behavior: New energy vehicles as an example," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 1249-1269, February.
    5. Chorong Youn & So‐young Kim & Yuri Lee & Ho Jung Choo & Seyoon Jang & Jae Im Jang, 2017. "Measuring Retailers' Sustainable Development," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(3), pages 385-398, March.
    6. Michael Carney & Eric Gedajlovic & Sujit Sur, 2011. "Corporate governance and stakeholder conflict," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 15(3), pages 483-507, August.
    7. Chai, Andreas & Bradley, Graham & Lo, Alex & Reser, Joseph, 2015. "What time to adapt? The role of discretionary time in sustaining the climate change value–action gap," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 95-107.
    8. Siano, Alfonso & Vollero, Agostino & Bertolini, Alessandra, 2022. "From brand control to brand co-creation: An integrated framework of brand paradigms and emerging brand perspectives," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 372-386.
    9. Lu, Yun & Ntim, Collins G. & Zhang, Qingjing & Li, Pingli, 2022. "Board of directors’ attributes and corporate outcomes: A systematic literature review and future research agenda," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    10. Kusa, Rafał & Suder, Marcin & Duda, Joanna, 2023. "Impact of greening on performance in the hospitality industry: Moderating effect of flexibility and inter-organizational cooperation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    11. Kara, Karahan & Yalçın, Galip Cihan & Akagün Ergin, Elif & Simic, Vladimir & Pamucar, Dragan, 2024. "A neutrosophic WENSLO-ARLON model for measuring sustainable brand equity performance," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    12. Nuanphromsakul, Kajohnjak & Szczepańska-Woszczyna, Katarzyna & Kot, Sebastian & Chaveesuk, Singha & Chaiyasoonthorn, Wornchanok, 2022. "Sustainability of Rubber Farmers Cooperatives: Empirical Evaluation of Determining Factors," AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, vol. 14(4), December.
    13. Filippo Corsini & Rafael Laurenti & Franziska Meinherz & Francesco Paolo Appio & Luca Mora, 2019. "The Advent of Practice Theories in Research on Sustainable Consumption: Past, Current and Future Directions of the Field," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, January.
    14. Iveta Šimberová & Alena Kocmanová, 2012. "Corporate governance - research of key indicators on market of processing industry in the Czech Republic via cluster analysis," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 60(7), pages 359-368.
    15. Malmaeus, J. Mikael & Alfredsson, Eva C., 2017. "Potential Consequences on the Economy of Low or No Growth - Short and Long Term Perspectives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 57-64.
    16. Presley K. Wesseh & Boqiang Lin & Yixuan Zhang & Preslyn Sharon Wesseh, 2024. "Sustainable entrepreneurship: When does environmental compliance improve corporate performance?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(4), pages 3203-3221, May.
    17. Vincent Sennes & Jacques Breillat & Francis Ribeyre & Sandrine Gombert, 2009. "Local policies for reducing the ecological impact of households: the case study of a suburban area in France," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 11(5), pages 1031-1049, October.
    18. Alcott, Blake, 2008. "The sufficiency strategy: Would rich-world frugality lower environmental impact," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 770-786, February.
    19. Andrea Lučić, 2020. "Measuring Sustainable Marketing Orientation—Scale Development Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-22, February.
    20. Danny Zhao‐Xiang Huang, 2022. "An integrated theory of the firm approach to environmental, social and governance performance," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(S1), pages 1567-1598, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:ijmark:v:2022:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s43039-022-00047-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.