Search results

The extant literature provides much-needed support to understand marketing accountability and how marketing actions are related to financial performance (FP). However, we have limited understanding of the relationships between marketing actions and firms' social performance (SP) and environmental performance (EP). Understanding these links is critical to enhancing sustainable FP, SP, and EP. Moreover, the literature provides limited understanding of the measures by which SP and EP may be operationalized, or the data necessary to reach a conclusion. This study bridges these gaps by extensively reviewing the extant literature to offer a set of measures and data sources to operationalize SP and EP, and empirically show their relationships with marketing actions. We find that greenhouse gas (GHG) emission, environmental disclosure score, waste reduction, energy consumption, and recycling are prominent measures of EP, and that social disclosure score, philanthropy or community spending, and diversity of gender and race are prominent measures of SP. The KLD, ASSET4, and Bloomberg are prominent sources of data that can be used to operationalize SP, to which CDP may be added for EP. We also show that marketing actions positively affect EP and SP. This study contributes to the extant literature on SP and EP by identifying measures and data sources and linking marketing actions to both performance types. It contributes to policy development by identifying the importance of EP and SP and how marketing actions can help achieve such performance.

To summarize and evaluate John Levi Marin’s recent book, The Explanation of Social Action (2011), the central thesis of which is that the actions of other people cannot be explained without first understanding those actions from the point of view of the actors themselves. Martin thus endeavors to reorient social science toward concrete experience and away from purportedly useless abstractions.

This review chapter employs close scrutiny of and applies immanent critique to Martin’s argumentative claims, warrants, and the polemical style in which these arguments are presented.

This chapter arrives at the following conclusions: (1) Martin unnecessarily truncates the scope of sociological investigation; (2) he fails to define the key concepts within his argument, including “explanation,” “social action,” and “understanding,” among others; (3) he overemphasizes the external or “environmental” causes of action; (4) rather than inducing actions, the so-called “action-fields” induce experiences, and are therefore incapable of explaining actions; (5) Martin rejects counterfactual definitions of causality while defining his own notion of causality in terms of counterfactuals; (6) most of his critiques of other philosophical accounts of causality are really critiques of their potential misapplication; (7) the separation of experience and language (i.e., propositions about experience) in order to secure the validity of the former does not secure the validity of sociological inquiry, since experiences are invariably reported in language; and, finally, (8) Martin’s argument that people are neurologically incapable of providing accurate, retrospective accounts of the motivations behind their own actions is based on the kind of third-person social science he elsewhere repudiates; that he acknowledges the veracity of these studies demonstrates the potential utility of the “third-person” perspectives and the implausibility of any social science that abandons them.

To date Martin’s book has received much praise but little critical attention. This review chapter seeks to fill this lacuna in the literature in order to better elucidate Martin’s central arguments and the conclusions that can be reasonably inferred from the logical and empirical evidence presented.

To clarify and address questions that have arisen concerning John Levi Martin’s Explanation of Social Action (2011). I reply to some of Martin’s comments to my original review of his book (2012). In particular, this paper examines the distinction between first-person and third-person accounts of human action and whether third-person explanations of action are ever justified.

This paper concedes several of Martin’s points, but contra Martin, maintains that third-person accounts are sometimes valuable forms of explanation. This paper also concludes that the distinction between first-person and third-person explanations is relative to the actor.

A careful and close analysis of his reply is employed along with careful explication and exemplification of central concepts related to the study of human action.

Martin has argued that third-person explanations of social action generate epistemological instability and hierarchical social relationships between researchers and those researched. This paper expresses doubts about the generalizability of these claims.

To date, no extended discussion has been published pertaining to the social value of third-person explanations of social action.

It is an arduous process for corporations to determine if social action advertising is a complementary fit with their respective brands. This study aims to explore opportunities and disadvantages when brands consider cause-related partnerships as part of their overall marketing strategy. There are motivators and detractors related to social actions promoted by brands. It is essential for organizations, institutions and corporations to better understand if, or when, to use advertising that contributes to the social good.

Phase one of the study was a qualitative analysis conducted through personal interviews. Coded passages from interviews were aggregated into themes, which later defined ten social action advertising measures. The second phase in the study was a quantitative analysis (N = 506) that tested consumer involvement with the social action advertisement “You Love Me.” The spot was designed for the Dr. Dre Beats brand, in response to the George Floyd murder in 2020.

Brands need to carefully examine their own histories, political associations and concern for all consumer segments, prior to evoking social change. Differentiations arising from political views and gender identity are discussed. Regressions indicate “social ads that use stereotypes” was the key significant predictor of emotional involvement. Consumers feeling “respected and represented in social action ads” was the key significant predictor of fact-based cognitive involvement. “Social action ads distorted through virtue signaling” were 38% more likely to effect brand purchase when consumers viewed the social action ad.

This is a nonfunded research study. Respondents who participated in interviews, and those selected for data collection, were solicited through convenience and judgmental nonprobability sampling. These data are racially and financially biased. Seventy-six percent of respondents in the racial variable were white; 51% stated they were “wealthy and have a lot of assets.” Neither variable is representative of the general population. In the future, researchers should collect a nonbiased stratified probability sample that would more closely reflect the general population and consumer audience.

This paper builds on the recommendations of Farrukh et al. (2021) who call for more published research in the areas of human rights violations and social change. The results of this study represent a cautionary tale. Political dogma within a polarized society has created pressure for chief marketing officers to integrate political values into brand values. The risk of creating adversarial factions has created a risky environment for brand developers and strategists (Mahoney, 2022).

The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between social capital and collective action at the county level in the US while incorporating the moderating effects of community racial diversity and urbanity and to find the changing effects of social capital on philanthropic collective action for community education.

This paper employs a quantitative research design. The dependent variable measures philanthropic collective action for community education while the independent variable for social capital is measured as a community level index. Moderating variables include a community racial diversity index and urbanity. This analysis tests and interprets interaction effects using moderated multiple regression (MMR), with the baselines of MMR being grounded to multivariate ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. Analyses are carried out in the context of the USA during 2006 and 2010, with US counties employed as the unit of analysis.

The effects of social capital on philanthropic contributions decline in counties with low- and mid-levels of racial diversity. On the contrary, the effects of social capital increase in highly racially diverse counties. The three-way interaction model result suggests that racial diversity positively moderates social capital on philanthropic collective action for community education where the effect of social capital is strong and positive in highly racially diverse urban communities.

This research complicates the notion that social capital and racial diversity are negatively associated when exploring collective action and community education, and suggests effects of social capital varies with moderating effects on philanthropic collective action for community education.

Although communication is of vital importance in construction projects, the construction industry is confronted with great communication difficulties and an ineffective use of information and communication technology (ICT) systems. In this study, the objective is to analyse obstacles and preconditions for an effective use of ICT by focusing on characteristics of interorganizational communication in construction projects. Interorganizational communication and ICT are studied by elaborating on these phenomena from the perspective of two paradigms – the traditional functionalist and the radical humanist – and theories representative for these paradigms – the agency theory and Habermas’ critical social theory. By using the method of metatriangulation, it is shown that in addition to the functionalist perspective, the critical social theory of Habermas is an appropriate theory for analysing obstacles and preconditions for an effective interorganizational communication and use of ICT. Based on this analysis, a critical research agenda on communication and ICT in construction is formulated. It is concluded that this type of research will lead to a more articulated view on the alignment between ICT applications and communication in construction projects and will show new directions for ICT development in the future.

Social entrepreneurs engage in action because social entrepreneurs want to solve social problems. Consequently, to see more social entrepreneurship in contexts with the most severe social problems is expected. This paper argues that this is an oversimplification of the problem-action nexus in social entrepreneurship and that action does not necessarily correspond to the observed scale of social problems. Drawing on the theoretical framing of crescive conditions, this relationship is affected by forms of public investment as institutions that distinctively promote engagement and public interest amongst social entrepreneurs. Thus, this paper assesses the relationship between varying levels of social problems and social entrepreneurship action (SEA) and how and to what extent public investment types – as more and less locally anchored crescive conditions – affect this relationship.

The hypotheses are tested with a series of random-effects regression models. The data stem from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor's (GEM) 2015 social entrepreneurship survey and Chile's 2015 National Socioeconomic Characterisation Survey (CASEN). The authors combined both data sets and cross-matched individual-level data (action and investment) with commune-level data (social problem scale) resulting in unique contextualised observations for 1,124 social entrepreneurs.

Contrary to current understanding, this study finds that SEA is positively associated with low-social problem scale. This means that high levels of deprivation do not immediately lead to action. The study also finds that locally anchored forms of investment positively moderate this relationship, stimulating action in the most deprived contexts. On the contrary, centralised public investment leads to increased social entrepreneurial action in wealthier communities where it is arguably less needed.

The findings contribute to the literature on SEA in deprived contexts, social and public investment as well as policy-level discussion and broader issues of entrepreneurship and social problems.