Dying to understand how historical trends and influential intermediaries impact the future of sustainable deathcare

Abstract

Purpose

Consumers often prefer sustainable goods and services but fail to follow through with purchases that reflect these espoused values. The green intention–outcome gap is studied in many contexts but has yet to inform deathcare decisions. Industry reports suggest that most Americans prefer sustainable deathcare options, yet unsustainable corpse dispositions dominate the market. The purpose of this paper is to understand how history informs this phenonea.

Design/methodology/approach

This study looks to the past – using historical narrative analysis of deathcare trends and influential intermediaries – to understand the future of sustainable deathcare and the prospective role that marketers can play in bridging the gap between decedents’ preferences and survivors’ purchase outcomes.

Findings

Historical ritualization, medicalization and commercialization have resulted in the monopolization of traditional deathcare services. Mortuary professionals remain unresponsive to consumer preferences for sustainable alternatives.

Social implications

Socioeconomic shocks can allow humanity to reflect and transition from consumerism to sustainability. COVID-19 has led to greater awareness of self-mortality, and death has become less taboo. The slow market penetration of sustainable deathcare services suggests a lack of communication between a decedent and their survivors. Marketing scholars need to help marketing practitioners bridge the preference-outcome gap.

Originality/value

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is amongst the first to examine how history informs the sustainable action–outcome gap for deathcare preferences in a post-COVID environment and the role that marketers can play in perpetuating change.

Citation

Villers, S. and Dhalla, R. (2024), "Dying to understand how historical trends and influential intermediaries impact the future of sustainable deathcare", Journal of Historical Research in Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 364-391. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHRM-12-2023-0051