Questions about marketing and sustainable development

It is interesting to see that often, in the PR contest between activist NGOs and for-profit companies, NGOs gain the upper hand despite having less resources. The “Kit-Kat” campaign by Greenpeace is a recent example, with Nestlé hesitating in its response, and Greenpeace seriously hurting a brand name that has taken years to get established.


However, private companies are also often reactive enough to not only prevent bad PR, but also to anticipate potential problems and participate in humanitarian or environmental actions. Wal-Mart promotes energy efficiency for its stores, its transport fleet, and its customers by pushing high-efficiency light bulbs. It also was one of the first entities, long before the federal government, to send help to Louisiana in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

It is interesting to not that in that case, such actions have more to do with long-term sustainable development than with quick PR actions, and therefore involve departments such as logistics and marketing.

Marketing is generally dependent of the specific organization in which it is used and, as a tool, is "morally" neutral. This is a very important concept as private organizations seeking economic growth are often criticized for their lack of environmental or social contribution to society, and marketing and sales are often seen as the means of perpetuating economic growth at the expense of the consumer and the environment.

However, marketing in itself is not a political concept, but a simple tool, that can be used not only by private companies, but also by NGOs or even administrations, although it will take other shapes in those cases. The difference between a poll and a marketing study can be minimal, and many political campaigns have image control and outreach departments that are very similar to marketing departments in private companies.

That is in large part because marketing interacts directly with sales and public relations, even though its original function is different. The growing complexity of the business world and the necessity of its inclusion of new concepts means that marketing departments are often grouped with PR, or tasked with integrating sustainable development into their objectives.


The growing societal push for more regulation of external costs (more on that in a future blog post) means that companies already have to start factoring in new environmental costs, such as the much bandied carbon costs, either by cap-and-trade or carbon tax. Those directly affect the bottom line and the entire marketing process, as costs can be limited if they are identified early on the product development and marketing cycles.


• Should private companies only seek profits and growth, thus fuelling economic growth of society and creating jobs (but potentially at a social and environmental external cost), or do they have a wider responsibility beyond that of their shareholders and employees?

• If yes, towards whom or what?

• In that case, can marketing play a role in private efforts for sustainable development?

• Or should efforts toward sustainable development be in the hands of the communication and public relations departments?

• By making sustainable development a responsibility of the marketing departments, could it become more integral to product development as opposed to being an add-on, and thus make it easier to foster good relations with actors such as state regulators and environmental NGOs?

• If marketing is the idea of bringing a product to market, from feasibility studies to sales analysis, should it take into account environmental costs, both external to the organization (“unpaid effects”) and internal (i.e., adverse effects in terms of supply chain costs and image damage)?

• Can marketing departments shoulder that charge, and are they better placed than others such as R&D, sales, or PR to do so?



I’m looking forward to hearing your opinions.