Using Macromarketing to Teach Business Sustainability

Why Managerial Macromarketing Matters

Students learning managerial macromarketing would likely result in managers developing and exerting influence in marketplaces around the world for a broader set of stakeholders. Radford et al (2015) note that while some notable exceptions exist (such as Kilbourne, 2008 and Peterson, 2013), “little evidence suggests that macromarketing is being well integrated into core marketing curricula” (p. 467). Given the need for further integrating macromarketing knowledge into marketing curricula, not surprisingly, macromarketing pedagogy remains underdeveloped (Shapiro, 2012).

However, recent developments outside academia create new opportunity for marketing educators to integrate macromarketing into the marketing curricula. In addition to technological changes, Rust (2020) asserts that socioeconomic factors (such as diversity, inclusion, and income inequality) and major changes for the world (such as globalization versus protectionism, and climate change) are now radically transforming marketing. Alarmingly, marketing’s radical transformation from forces outside of markets—the focus of macromarketing—has little pedagogical research to guide educators about the benefits and challenges of integrating macromarketing into marketing education programs (Shapiro et al., 2020). This article addresses this glaring shortcoming for marketing educators.

To become oriented to concepts of macromarketing pedagogy, a set of definitions for such concepts would help the reader. Toward this purpose, Table 1 presents useful definitions for concepts of macromarketing pedagogy to teach business sustainability.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Concepts of Macromarketing Pedagogy.

Abductive Reasoning—the process of reasoning from data to an initial explanation or a preliminary diagnosis. Although fallible, such initial explanations eliminate unworkable explanations and allow an individual to more effectively reason in new situations and contexts Business Sustainability 1.0—the first stage of pursuing sustainability when firms create shareholder value, but pursue sustainability-oriented endeavors to reduce costs and risk, as well as to market green products to segments now receptive to them. Refined shareholder-value management Business Sustainability 2.0—the second stage of pursuing sustainability when firms broaden the stakeholder perspective and pursue the triple bottom line of people, planet, and profit. Triple-bottom-line management for creating social, environmental, and economic value Business Sustainability 3.0—the third stage of pursuing sustainability when firms shift their business-centric focus to pursue systemic change in society’s wicked challenges, such as climate change, migration, corruption, water, poverty, pandemics, and inequality of various types Conscious Capitalism—a movement among business persons who view a business as a community of persons working together to create value for others and all the stakeholders. Also, the name for a business simulation from Marketplace® Simulations Constructivist Learning—also called discovery learning where learners are not passive receptacles, but must work to create knowledge that fit their belief systems. Learners must challenge and investigate to make sense of new information. Social interaction and authentic tasks boost constructivist learning. Dominant Social Paradigm—a materialist ideology whose essence is “more is better” and whose stance toward competitive markets is “if it works, it must be good.” For individuals, living beyond one’s means through the use of commercial debt is more likely for those living in a culture of shopping and consuming. Double-loop Learning—occurs when actions are corrected after changing the values that govern such actions. A person asking why such a behavior is done and then modifying or changing one’s behavior to be more in line with one’s values (such as living with integrity or being other-oriented) would be an example of double-loop learning Hacking the System—something one does when exasperated by the current arrangement of things to change such an arrangement. For example, figuring out a way to move from being excluded to being included in a social system (from being marginalized to being part of a favored social group) Macromarketing—a systems-oriented approach to understanding the interplay between marketing and society Micromarketing—a firm-centric view of how firms succeed in the marketplace with their customers. The dyad of buyer and seller assumes utmost importance. Managerial Macromarketing—a firm-centric view of how firms succeed in the marketplace by integrating societal issues (environmental and social) issues into firm decision-making. Firms that take such an approach must make sustainability a strategic priority so that the functional areas of the firm contribute to creating value for society, as well as profits New Environmental Paradigm—an ideology emphasizing the interdependency of humans with the natural environment. It asserts that humanity can disrupt the balance of nature, and therefore limits to economic growth must be adopted. Stakeholders—those who have a stake or an interest in the activities that comprise a business. Without the support of primary stakeholders, a firm would likely cease to exist. These include society and communities, partners, investors, customers, and employees. Secondary stakeholders matter to a business, but often not as crucially as primary stakeholders. These include nongovernmental organizations, competitors, government, future generations, and the environment, as well as media

Because of macromarketing’s societal perspective (taking a systems view of the interplay among marketing, markets, and society; Hunt, 2020), its underutilization bodes poorly for marketing becoming a professional discipline with obligations to society—the ultimate client of the marketing academy (Hunt, 2014, pp. 55–56, 60). Failure to integrate societal issues into marketing curricula will bring increasing irrelevance for the field (Holbrook, 2005). This is a primary reason for macromarketing to be regularly integrated in the research of marketing scholars, as well as the teaching of marketing.

In the 1950s, business schools in the United States followed a trade-school model until the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Foundation leveled criticism at the lack of rigor in business schools’ curricula (Schlegelmilch, 2020). After the 1950s, business schools integrated scientific rigor in its research and classroom content. Yet, tension about going beyond a focus on job-related tasks for future graduates has not subsided in business schools.

But consider how technical drawing or drafting remains a skill area, rather than an academic discipline. Sadly, those practicing drafting have become vulnerable to the latest computer innovation that increasingly renders such work as automatable—for robots and machines, rather than humans. Management education should be broad and not adopt a narrow functional specialization (Thomas et al., 2013, p. 92). Problems encountered by leaders in business are not only frequently complex but also characterized by paradox and ambiguity. Accordingly, business persons need to develop holistic thinking—which the study of macromarketing can boost. In particular, business persons need to move from a firm-centric view of business toward network and ecological perspectives (Schoemaker, 2008).

The urgency for shifting from a firm-centric view of business can be seen in the way technology has given consumers tremendous agency when evaluating products and services directly without the mediation of marketers and their sponsored messaging (Belk, 2020). Consumers can watch other consumers’ haul videos or YouTube videos on how to use a product, as well as review online rating sites, such as TripAdvisor. Another trend that has made marketing efforts of firms less important are the use of Big Data, analytics, and algorithms that turn Google and Facebook data on consumers into increasingly accurate ways to target consumers without traditional advertising campaigns in mainstream media.

In sum, technological changes (such as artificial intelligence, big data, machine learning, the internet, and the expansion of networks) are making the 1960s-style 4 Ps increasingly obsolete (Rust, 2020). A different way of thinking about the increasing complexity of market activity is needed that would focus on underlying structures, rather than just the symptoms observed in such complex contexts. Systems thinking is such a different way of thinking about complexities and interdependencies (Beitelspacher & Rodgers, 2018). It can be employed to better understand the role of marketing systems in markets of the 21st century, such as business ecosystems that would frequently include agentic consumers and networked stakeholders. Macromarketing integrates a systems approach to explaining market-related phenomena related to the mutual influence between marketing and society (Hunt et al., 2021). If business schools remain focused narrowly on the 4 Ps in the teaching of marketing from a bygone era, it could it be déjà vu all over again for marketing.

The Connection Between Macromarketing and Business Sustainability

Forces for Changing the Business School Curriculum

As previously noted, macromarketing content warrants much more integration into marketing curricula due to a world now under transformation because of forces external to the firm, such as technological, sociocultural, and geopolitical forces (Rust, 2020). But still both macromarketing and business sustainability content struggle to find a place in business curricula (Kemper, Hall, & Ballantine, 2019). However, things may change. Forces that may lead to curriculum change for business schools include (a) recent revisions to accreditation standards for business schools and (b) market demand for sustainability content from students.

Anticipating the Future: What If the Business School Curriculum Changes?

Despite evidence for the world outside business schools rapidly changing (Rust, 2020), business school leadership and faculty members are likely to regard macromarketing and sustainability education like corporate executives of firms in Business Sustainability 1.0 would regard green or conservation initiatives for the firm. Such initiatives are valuable to the extent that they make the business school more viable in a competitive marketplace (rather than valuable based on moral grounds for what such initiatives might mean to stakeholders of the business school).

Minority influence research from psychology suggests that macromarketing-minded faculty acting as institutional entrepreneurs will succeed in persuading business schools to integrate content for a better world if their calls for such action remain distinct and consistent over time (Gardikiotis, 2011). According to the genetic model of minority influence (Moscovici, 1976), social influence is about negotiating social conflicts. In a process of innovation, a consistent minority challenges the status quo so that uncertainty results. In this way, the consistent minority makes itself known. Such a minority proposes another way of doing things. After making such a proposal, it confidently demonstrates how such an alternative could succeed in practice. Eventually, the majority can shift and adopt the perspective of the consistent minority to resolve the dissonance and tension created by the consistent minority’s proposal. This looks very much like what hacking the system could look like in practice.

Should such system hacking succeed and business schools embrace more content focused on Business Sustainability 2.0 (firms managing the TBL) and 3.0 (firms pursuing systemic action to create value for the common good), macromarketing-minded faculty would likely confront a new challenge—educating more students who are not already sold on the merits of macromarketing and sustainability.

According to Diffusion of Innovations Theory (Rogers, 1995), an innovator group of consumers (about 3% of consumers in the market) seeks and tries a typical new product earlier in time than other consumer segments. Most business schools have introduced at least one course dedicated to sustainability (Parris & McInnis-Bowers, 2017). Because macromarketing and sustainability education is innovative content in the business school, those who have taught it likely have taught classes comprised mostly of such innovative student-consumers. If macromarketing and sustainability courses become more mainstream, teachers will encounter more heterogeneous classes in terms of worldviews about responsible approaches to marketing and attitudes toward the risks such approaches bring to managers. In short, there will be more students in classes with macromarketing and sustainability content that are reticent about these topics. A similar situation has occurred at traditionally run firms that transition to emphasizing sustainability, such as Unilever (Bhattacharya & Polman, 2017). There is a large swath of the workforce that begins the transition as undecided about the pursuit of sustainability.

After the system is hacked, most of the students coming into classes for macromarketing and sustainability will likely be like those business-school leaders and faculty members who previously regarded such content as acceptable—but only if it boosts market viability for the business school. Only now, many students will want their job-market viability enhanced. Like the enlightened leaders of firms that have successfully transitioned to emphasizing sustainability, effective teachers of macromarketing and sustainability should highlight the favorable financial outcomes that can come from pursuing sustainability (Eccles et al., 2014) from the outset of the course—and return to this theme regularly.

Currently, firms struggle with evaluating business students’ competencies regarding environmental, social, and governance (ESG) and are having their human resources professionals develop ways to measure them (Penty & Solomon, 2020). Until firms catch up with a shift to prioritizing diversity and sustainability, the market payoff for learning macromarketing and sustainability will not be evident to students. This is a reason for macromarketing-minded faculty to be change agents in their business schools—they will learn about the social-influence processes they will need in teaching the macromarketing and sustainability courses.

These courses will succeed in a variety of ways if faculty teaching such courses approach them as educational endeavors to be done with students, rather than as indoctrination projects targeting students (Kauchak et al., 1978). Teachers encouraging critical thinking that students do for themselves will likely find success as they design and conduct classroom learning to have students reflect upon and to question concepts about traditional marketing and consumer culture (Bailin & Siegel, 2002; Kemper, Ballantine, & Hall, 2019).

In allowing students to make up their minds about debatable issues, teachers will boost the double-loop learning for students that enables students to make decisions outside of the class using values and ways of thinking developed in the course (Argyris, 2002). Double-loop learning occurs when actions are corrected after changing the values that govern such actions. A person asking why such a behavior is done and then modifying or changing one’s behavior to be more in line with one’s values (such as living with integrity or being other-oriented) would be an example of double-loop learning. In sum, respecting students’ freedom of conscience regarding societal issues should be part of macromarketing pedagogy so that classroom learning remains part of a students’ education for navigating the years ahead, rather than indoctrination for the duration of a course.

Managerial Macromarketing Teachers—Rebels With a Cause

A paradox occurs when something combines contradictory features or qualities (Merriam-Webster, 2021). Paradox theory in management posits that contradictions between interdependent elements are ubiquitous, such that resulting tensions between various aspects that seem logical in isolation appear absurd and irrational when they are simultaneously present (Hahn et al., 2018).

One example of such a paradox might be sustainable marketing (Kemper, Ballantine, & Hall, 2019). Some environmentalists view marketing as antithetical to sustainability because of marketing’s long-running focus on increasing consumption and serving corporate interests. In a similar way, some marketers might view environmental concerns as antagonistic to improving their firm’s shareholder value. Yet, marketing done mindfully with sustainability principles not only occurs (Peterson, 2021), but could become the defining characteristic of marketing this century (Achrol & Kotler, 2012). Indeed, macromarketing thought-leader Cliff Shultz (Peterson, 2013, p. xvii) has asserted “the future of marketing is macromarketing.”

Managerial macromarketing that combines the macro-level perspective of the common good in the micro-level decision-making of firm leaders would fulfill Shultz’s idea of marketing’s future. However, some thought leaders in macromarketing’s first decades regarded managerially relevant content not macromarketing (Nason, 2006). In short, managerial macromarketing appeared unachievable because of the conceptual differences between macro (societal) and micro (firm) values. However, a step in the further institutionalization of macromarketing occurred in 2013 with the publication of Sustainable Enterprise: A Macromarketing Approach (Peterson, 2013). This textbook adopted a managerial macromarketing approach that advocated a market-based approach to sustainability by giving preference to innovation and entrepreneurship in firms’ social responsibility, rather than government intervention to address environmental and social concerns (Reppel, 2012). In this way, the textbook includes a unique macromarketing focus. The second edition of this textbook is Sustainable Marketing: A Holistic Approach (Peterson, 2021).

Researchers have noted the opposing paradigms in the life of business schools today with the priority given to consumption in the Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP) set against the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) that emphasizes the interdependency of humans with the environment (Kemper et al., 2020b). In the global survey of Kemper et al.’s study, marketing teachers posted a lower average score on a 5-point NEP scale (M = 3.58) compared with scientists (3.94), as well as to other academics in higher education. Given marketing academics’ lower level of environmental concern compared with other academics in this global survey and the tiny fraction of content in top marketing journals that is related to sustainability, it appears that the NEP’s counterweight to the DSP is currently weak. This suggests that teachers of managerial macromarketing would be rebels—but more specifically, rebels with a cause.

Conclusion

The purpose of this article was to show how macromarketing concepts can be used to integrate business sustainability into the business school curriculum through the teaching of managerial macromarketing. This article has focused on the challenges and opportunities for teaching macromarketing concepts to business students. The time has never been better for integrating macromarketing and sustainability into business school curricula as managerial macromarketing. Although business schools, their faculties, and their students now welcome mostly business-centric sustainability (profits prioritized over value for other stakeholders), the changing environment outside business schools for societal-centric sustainability from firms sets the stage for a reformation of business schools in the coming years (Schlegelmilch, 2020).

Still, challenges remain in bringing macromarketing and sustainability into business school curricula. As a result, teachers of managerial macromarketing will be rebels. But thankfully, they will be rebels with a worthy cause.