People, Peace, Prosperity, and the Planet: A Journey toward Sustainable Development in Consumer Research (2024)

,

Abstract

“… there is a growing call for consumer research to get out of the ivory tower and address a growing list of important managerial and societal concerns to which we can speak as consumer researchers”—Schmitt et al. (2022, 755)

As part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the United Nations (UN) developed 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which were adopted by all UN member countries; the SDGs reflect “a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet” (https://sdgs.un.org/goals). The SDGs strive to address climate change and increase the sustainability of the Earth and all creatures living on it, through the lens of eradicating poverty and hunger, increasing access to healthcare and education, protecting our natural environment, and promoting economic growth. The need for more sustainable development is vital: for example, it has been estimated that, if the world were to consume at the level of the U.S., four Earths would be needed to sustain us (McDonald 2015).

The initiative of the SDGs at the global level raises the question: how can the Journal of Consumer Research (JCR) shed light on achieving the SDGs and contribute to sustainable development? The issues of the SDGs are particularly relevant to consumer behavior scholars, JCR, and business schools because they are linked to real-world problems that often result from marketplace and consumption practices (Schmitt et al. 2022).1 Business schools are increasingly expected to contribute to public understanding and the greater good, through an inclusive lens that helps to advance well-being for all stakeholders (AACSB 2020, EQUIS n.d.; RRBM2). As consumer behavior scholars, we are experts in uncovering how psychological, sociological, anthropological, cultural, or environmental factors influence individual and group acquisition, consumption, and disposition behaviors. Thus, JCR is uniquely poised to help uncover how consumer behaviors relate to the pursuit of the SDGs.

Against this background, our objectives (and corresponding contributions) are threefold. First, we provide a systematic review, content analysis, and trend analysis of research in JCR since its inception and how it relates to the SDGs. For more meaningful insights, our analyses also incorporate the Journal of Consumer Psychology (JCP) and the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing (JPP&M). Second, we aim to demonstrate where JCR has made progress (before and after the SDGs were introduced) and provided important insights and impact (as captured via Altmetric analyses), as well as identify significant gaps in the literature, as seen through the lens of the SDGs. Third, based on exploratory interviews with scholars, UN SDG databases, insights from the sociology of science, and an exploratory survey with business students in three countries (the U.S., France, and Singapore), we provide recommendations to illustrate how the field can (better) incorporate the SDGs in all facets of research, teaching, and service—for the benefit of people, peace, prosperity, and the planet.

UNDERSTANDING JCR’S EVOLUTION IN LIGHT OF THE SDGs

Our content analysis of articles related to sustainable development at JCR, JCP, and JPP&M was based on text mining of the abstracts using keywords related to 16 SDGs.3 The analysis was conducted at the level of the individual SDG as outlined below. However, for ease of reporting and following similar approaches in the literature (Karobliene and Pilinkiene 2021), we group the SDGs into four themes (web appendices A and B):

• The theme of “People” refers to the SDGs related to personal well-being, such as meeting the income, food, and health needs of individuals (SDGs 1, 2, 3).

• The theme of “Peace” refers to the SDGs related to societal well-being, such as ensuring equity in gender, education, and social justice (SDGs 4, 5, 10, 16).

• The theme of “Prosperity” refers to the SDGs related to economic well-being, such as creating sustainable infrastructures, work, and economies (SDGs 8, 9, 11, 12).

• The theme of “Planet” refers to the SDGs related to environmental well-being, such as preserving the Earth’s lands and waters (SDGs 6, 7, 13, 14, 15).

Method

Methodological Overview

Our central method analyzes the entire body of articles in JCR, as well as JCP and JPP&M. To supplement our analysis, we also (a) conducted in-depth interviews with nine consumer behavior thought leaders and two JCR authors with high policy impact work (e.g., presenting JCR research to the Obama administration, CFPB, and U.S. Department of Justice), (b) conducted studies with business students on three continents (in the U.S., France, and Singapore), and (c) conducted an analysis (linking our results to UN data) of the intersection of the current status of SDG progress by country and the relevance of the focal SDG to consumer behavior (for three countries: the U.S., France, and Singapore).

Analysis of JCR Articles

We collected all articles published in JCR from its inception until Volume 48, Issue 3 in 2021. Following Wang et al. (2015), we analyzed the abstracts of all published JCR articles.4 We used Web of Science (1974–1995) and Scopus (1996 onward) to collect the articles; when abstracts were missing, we collected them via JCR’s website. Our set of abstracts goes beyond prior historical analysis in JCR to include editorials, research notes, and commentaries, which may have discussed SDGs. Overall, our database contains titles, abstracts, authors, volume, issue, publication date, and DOI for all work in JCR.

To analyze the SDGs featured in JCR abstracts, we used a keyword-based approach. To identify keywords, we completed different iterations for finding the best set of keywords which could properly identify the articles, using the verbiage in the SDGs. Specifically, we used the description of each of the 16 SDGs and their corresponding sub-targets to generate a set of keywords. The keyword list included both required keywords that each article must include (which ensured relevance to the focal SDG) and optional keywords (which were used to identify articles with a higher match to the SDG). An SDG score was calculated by counting the number of instances of required and optional keywords in an abstract and dividing it by the total number of words in the abstract. We note that this analysis is conducted at the goal level, for each of the 16 goals. For ease of exposition, results are reported at the 4 Ps’ level (People, Peace, Prosperity, Planet). Web appendices C and D include a description of the procedure, all keywords, and corresponding code; the web appendix also contains a supplemental database of all articles resulting in an SDG match.

Analysis of Additional Journals

We conducted the same analysis for two additional journals: JCP and JPP&M. JCP was selected based on its positioning as another top journal focused on consumer behavior. JPP&M was selected based on its emphasis on societal and policy issues in marketing. We used the same analytical approach as used with JCR, including all articles since the two journals’ respective dates of inception.

SDG Emphasis in the Journals Pre- and Post-2015

The SDGs were introduced in 2015. Therefore, we also analyze the extent to which emphasis on SDG-related topics may have shifted over time (i.e., pre-2015 and post-2015).

Policy Mentions via Altmetric Analysis

We conducted supplementary analyses of the articles that emerged as SDG articles from the keyword analysis using Altmetric5 data. We identified how articles in JCR, JCP, and JPP&M have been represented in policy decision-making, as well as other areas of impact, including news mentions and social media mentions (e.g., Twitter, Pinterest, blogs). We analyzed the number and percentage of articles in JCR, JCP, and JPP&M overall, as well as across the four Ps (People, Peace, Prosperity, Planet).

Robustness Check: Qualitative Evaluation of Analysis Approach

We checked the reliability of the 16 SDG dictionaries by using a human coding scheme (Humphreys and Wang 2018). Three coders independently assessed the abstracts and classified an abstract as (non-)SDG related. The coders next independently classified 1,000 randomly chosen abstracts from the total number of JCR articles (1974–2021) and categorized the 1,000 articles as SDG related or non-SDG related for each of the 16 SDGs. For each SDG, if two of the coders voted an abstract as belonging to the same SDG, the abstract was coded as pertinent to that SDG. As an additional step, the co-author team manually checked the accuracy of the coding of all selected articles. The hit rate is 88.48% with 11.52% articles as false positives. Web appendix C provides detailed results of the additional accuracy check.

Robustness Check: Topic Analysis of SDG- and Non-SDG-Related JCR Articles

Our main analysis focused on examining whether all articles in JCR contained keywords relating to the SDGs. This robustness analysis takes a different lens, as we examine whether SDG- and non-SDG-related JCR articles tend to focus on different topics in general. To do so, we analyzed whether the topics in SDG- and non-SDG-related JCR articles differed. Our topic model assumed a fixed number of hidden topics across abstracts. We use 10 topics to distinguish the list of topics between SDG- and non-SDG-related articles. (Note that when we used different numbers ranging from 5 to 15, our results remained the same.) We expect that different topics would emerge from SDG and non-SDG articles. See web appendix E for a description of the analytical procedure and corresponding topics from the robustness check.

Results

Analysis of JCR Articles

Overall, we identified 378 unique JCR papers relating to any one of the SDGs—amounting to 19.39% of all JCR articles. Of the four themes, People has the highest coverage (10.20%) of JCR articles, followed by Peace (6.84%), Prosperity (1.76%), and Planet (.59%). Analyses at the individual SDG level offer further detail (web appendix B). For example, SDG 2 (Zero hunger) and SDG 3 (Good health and well-being) have the highest coverage in JCR, reflecting People.

We also examined the evolution of the four themes across JCR articles since its inception (web appendix F). Articles related to People have seen a surge in interest since 2001 (e.g., food and health), particularly relating to SDG 1 (No poverty) and SDG 2 (Zero hunger). The number of articles related to Peace and Prosperity, while fluctuating over the decades, has been increasing since 2015 and 2018, respectively; articles related to Planet have seen low coverage since the turn of the century. Web appendix G provides additional detailed analyses for all 16 SDGs on an individual goal level (by journal).

Analysis of JCR Relative to Additional Journals

Overall coverage of SDGs in JCR and JCP reflects a relatively consistent pattern (web appendices B and F). For example, JCP’s coverage is also prominent in the People category, though some goals are emphasized more than others (e.g., in JCP, SDG 3 was covered in 4.08% of articles [50 articles] and SDG 2 was covered in 3.19% [39 articles]). Similarly, in JPP&M, coverage of the People theme was particularly prominent via SDG 2 (9.92%; 99 articles) and SDG 3 (19.34%; 193 articles).

SDG Emphasis in the Journals Pre- and Post-2015

As table1 shows, JCR and JCP exhibit relatively consistent patterns and levels of coverage of the SDGs overall (at 19.39% and 17.89%, respectively since their first issues). As expected, coverage of SDGs in JPP&M is higher (72.55%), as this journal has a societal emphasis as part of its mission. For more nuanced insights, we also show the year-by-year patterns for the 4 themes (web appendix F) as well as the 16 individual SDGs (web appendix G).

To examine how coverage of SDG topics may have changed before and after the SDGs were introduced, we conducted a regression analysis, see table 2. In the model, the percentage of SDG coverage per year was the outcome variable, and pre- or post-SDG announcement was the indicator variable (before 2015: 0; after 2015: 1).6 Time trend is used as a control variable because the journals had different overall durations. The regression analysis shows that JCR exhibited a significant increase in coverage after the SDGs were announced (b = 0.176, p < .001); this effect is primarily driven by People (b = 0.145, p < .001) and, to a lesser degree, by Prosperity (b = 0.022, p < .05). Although JCR and JCP had similar coverage before 2015, JCR had a significant increase after 2015 and JCP did not. That is, JCP showed no significant overall difference in SDG coverage pre- and post-2015, but there was a significant theme-specific decrease related to Planet (b = −0.016, p < .05). JPP&M did not show a significant increase in SDG coverage after 2015 (b = 0.028, n.s.), which is likely a function of two themes significantly increasing (Planet, Prosperity) and one theme decreasing (Peace), thereby counteracting each other to generate a non-significant overall effect. We also note that the level of overall coverage at JPP&M remained at a relatively high level, consistent with its mission. Thus, JCR is the only journal to exhibit a significant overall increase in SDG coverage after 2015, whereas JCP and JPP&M do not.

Altmetric Analysis of Policy, News, and Social Media Mentions

Dissemination of information about JCR articles via news outlets is noteworthy at 39.42%, more than that of JCP (34.68%) and considerably more than JPP&M (13.87%) (figure1). Social Media mentions exhibit a similar pattern, with 51.85% of JCR articles receiving mentions, vis-à-vis 47.40% for JCP and 22.15% for JPP&M; percentages of Blog mentions and Wiki mentions follow a consistent pattern across the three journals (figure1). Relevance of research for policy is of particular interest when considering journal impact related to the SDGs. Indeed, JCR articles are being used to help inform policy. For example, the proportion of JCR articles with policy mentions is more than double that of JCP (9.52% vs. 4.62%); in parallel, as one might expect, JPP&M, which emphasizes policy, shows a relatively greater number of policy mentions (14.08%). Taken together, these findings suggest that consumer research is of interest to the broader public and to public policy, albeit with room for further impact.

Robustness Check Result: Qualitative Evaluation of Analysis Approach

The qualitative analysis of over 1,000 articles by 3 different coders showed a high level of reliability. That is, the average classification accuracy across the 16 SDGs between the dictionary-based formula and the voting of the three coders is 82%.

Robustness Check Result: Topic Analysis of (Non-)SDG-Related JCR Articles

The robustness check (web appendix E) revealed that the two groups of articles exhibited different topic areas, as expected. For example, for SDG-related articles, the topic of “food consumption” emerged with terms such as “food,” “consumption,” “healthy,” and “eating.” Non-SDG-related articles had topics emerge that are consistent with traditional consumer behavior research (e.g., “pricing,” “information processing,” “choice and decision-making”). Moreover, even when the same topic emerged across both groups (e.g., SDG- and non-SDG-related articles had the topic of “goals” emerge), the associated terms that loaded with the topic differed. Web appendix E displays the corresponding topic lists for both sets of articles.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

As we reflect on 50 years of research in JCR through the lens of the SDGs, we also contemplate future research paths to better connect consumer research with the SDGs. Our perspective is that the consumer research community (i.e., marketing educators/scholars, professional bodies/organizations, managers, policymakers) has some responsibility and expertise to contribute to a more sustainable world by supporting SDG-related research.

Connections between Consumer Research and the SDGs

Our content analysis of JCR identifies some SDG-related work but also suggests that more progress is possible. This notion raises questions such as: what are key barriers and challenges to SDG research in our field (and JCR) and how can they be overcome? What are the benefits to our field of adopting an SDG lens in consumer research and which factors could support scientific migration toward this research area? And, how can we heighten the impact of SDG-related consumer research? With these questions in mind, we conducted exploratory interviews (45–60 minutes) with 9 thought leaders in our field (e.g., ACR fellows, former ACR presidents, current/former editors of JCR, Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), Journal of Marketing (JM), Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (JAMS), JPP&M, Journal of Service Research (JSR)), who have helped establish new research paradigms. Highlights of major themes, exemplary quotes, and implications are identified in table3, with a more comprehensive discussion in web appendix H.

We also interviewed 2 authors from Bone, Christensen, and Williams (2014) about their approach to increasing the policy impact of their JCR research. The authors shared that the coordinated efforts across their universities to translate and disseminate their work to the policy community were key in helping to increase its impact. This led to collaboration with the National Community Reinvestment Coalition. The authors presented their JCR article findings to the Obama administration staff, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The work was cited in a U.S. Senate hearing and helped to inform sections of the Dodd-Frank Act. Thus, the research helps to address SDG1 (Reducing Poverty) and SDG10 (Reducing Inequalities) (web appendix H).

Bridging the Disconnect between (Macro) SDGs and (Micro) Consumer Behavior: Prioritize and Operationalize the SDGs

To better identify linkages between consumer research and the SDGs, we need to prioritize the SDGs through a consumer research lens. To illustrate this idea, we rated the consumer research potential for each SDG and its targets to assess where the JCR community is best positioned to focus its efforts (see the supplementary file to this article for these ratings).7 This initial assessment points to six SDGs—poverty (SDG 1), hunger (SDG 2), health (SDG 3), education (SDG 4), gender equality (SDG 5), and sustainable consumption and production (SDG 12)—which seem to offer the best overall fit with consumer research. In parallel, we also identified several research topics within each SDG that we judged had particularly strong consumer research potential (see figure2 for an illustration of prioritized consumer research topics). Our purpose in doing so was not to be exhaustive (which is beyond the scope of this article), but to offer opportunities for extensions of our work; e.g., see Huan et al. 2022 for a systematic review of methods to prioritize the SDGs. Rather, our goal was to illustrate how each SDG—which may feel abstract and unrelated to consumers—can be connected to important topics in consumer research. Our judgment is, of course, fallible; but this initial assessment is meant to provide a starting point for future research on the SDGs through a consumer lens.

Second, to overcome the perceptions that the SDGs are abstract, overwhelming, and atheoretical, we advocate for a concerted effort to operationalize the SDGs through a consumer research lens. This effort would entail a detailed break-down of all SDGs (including their 169 targets and 232 “measurable” indicators) into more specific facets that are either directly or indirectly linked to consumers. This process helps identify not only many linkages that exist between the SDGs and consumer research but also reveals aspects of the SDGs that require interdisciplinary research as well as those facets where consumer research is, indeed, least likely to contribute.

Gaps in Research and Understanding: Illustrations Related to SDGs 6, 2, and 3

We illustrate how beginning to operationalize the SDGs can yield novel insights and promising paths for future research with the following examples in the areas of SDGs 6, 2, and 3:

JCR is largely silent on SDG 6 (Clean water and sanitation; 0.13% of articles)—yet billions of people lack access to these basic services, demand for water is growing, and water eco-systems are increasingly under stress. The targets and indicators for SDG 6 point to opportunities for consumer research aimed at improving water quality, increasing water-use efficiency, and reducing the number of people suffering from water scarcity. For example, research could examine people’s own water consumption, their experiences and reactions to water scarcity, and their responses to industry practices (e.g., the fashion industry is the second largest consumer of the world’s water and the second largest producer of water waste), which also connects to SDG 12 (Responsible consumption and production).

In contrast to SDG 6, JCR is relatively active on SDG 2 (Zero hunger; 4.03% of articles) and SDG 3 (Health; 3.82% of articles). Yet, a closer examination of this work from the perspective of these SDGs reveals important gaps. For example, JCR has made significant contributions to our understanding of health-related marketing and health-goal pursuit but has less to say about consumption related to maternal and reproductive health, children’s health, mental health, substance abuse, and health insurance (see SDG 3’s targets and indicators).

Likewise, food research has tended to emphasize obesity concerns—in striking contrast to SDG 2’s emphasis on zero hunger. According to the UN, “2.37 billion people are without food or unable to eat a healthy balanced diet on a regular basis” (UN 2020)—but the literature in JCR is largely silent on the topic of food scarcity, which is a problem that is well-suited for consumer research. Moreover, the literature’s emphasis on food has (until recently) tended to neglect its flip side—food waste (see Block et al. 2016 and SDG 12.3)—which points to the need to also emphasize meso- and macro-factors linked to the SDGs (e.g., MacLachlan and McVeigh [2021] propose the idea of “macropsychology” to study the SDGs).

Contextualization, Tradeoffs, and Synergies: The Example of Consumer Housing

Adopting a consumer lens on the SDGs can yield fruitful insights for a sustainable world. Conversely, adopting an SDG lens can provide new ways of looking at consumer behavior as this lens broadens and deepens the contextualization of consumer behavior and reveals tradeoffs and synergies among the SDGs. That is, an SDG lens emphasizes the importance of shifting from a consideration of individual behaviors in isolation to examining the evolution of consumption behavior over time, at the intersection of multiple SDGs. To illustrate, consider the pervasive consequences of housing for consumer behavior. From a People lens, access to adequate and affordable housing helps reduce poverty and contributes to health and well-being. Housing is also critical to Prosperity: stable housing may be needed to gain employment and banking services (e.g., need for a permanent address) and housing can also provide economic opportunities (e.g., working from home, intergenerational wealth-building). Types of housing also have considerable consequences for our Planet: housing construction has climate impacts (e.g., raw materials), housing consumes land and energy resources, and it requires community infrastructure (e.g., roads, sewage, water). Lastly, housing affects Peace: affordable housing can raise living standards and reduce inequalities among community members. While there can be benefits to isolating a particular aspect of housing (e.g., financial aspects of home ownership), a broader view helps illuminate the trade-offs and synergies among the SDGs. In the U.S., for example, home ownership is the “ideal” and represents a big-ticket purchase that, given rising housing costs, can mire consumers in debt (SDG 1) and undermine sustainable housing and cities (SDG 11).

Moreover, houses (vs. smaller footprint apartments) fuel subsequent consumption as they (a) consume resources themselves (e.g., land, heat, energy) and (b) consumers fill the corresponding space with goods—from furniture to washers/driers to lawn mowers (SDG 12). Geographical location of the home not only influences the need for different types of transportation (SDG 11) but also access to school districts, and quality of education can further influence intergenerational prosperity (SDGs 1, 4, 10). Research to date has tended to focus on discrete product choices, whereas the housing choice that underlies many of them is a fruitful area of inquiry that is enriched by adopting an SDG perspective.

This housing example also points to the need for consumer research to better understand how consumers make tradeoffs among the SDGs. For example, home ownership can drive consumer debt but also offers an opportunity to accumulate wealth, a tradeoff related to poverty (SDG 1). Home ownership can also force consumers to make tradeoffs with other important purchases, including necessities like food and important investments like education (SDGs 2 and 4). Do consumers anticipate these tradeoffs and, when faced with constraints, how do they make them? Looked at another way, consumers can also make sustainable housing decisions (e.g., smaller, multi-family dwellings) with associated positive effects (e.g., lower energy usage, shorter commutes) (SDG 11). What can be done to encourage sustainable decision-making in housing and housing-related expenditures? And do consumers preserve these sustainability gains, or do they instead engage in compensatory consumption (e.g., vacations)? As these questions attest, adopting an SDG lens when investigating a focal consumer behavior (here, housing) can raise important research questions that lead to novel theoretical and substantive insights, related to both the focal behavior and to sustainability itself (as figure3 illustrates).

Deriving Research Priorities via UN SDG Data

Consumer researchers can also draw on SDG data from the UN to guide their efforts. For example, the UN publishes country-specific SDG indexes and dashboards as an assessment of performance on the SDGs over time (www.sdgindex.org). These dashboards help derive the urgency underlying certain SDGs and can point to important and novel research areas in the realm of consumer behavior. For example (related to SDG 16), the U.S. continues to hold the highest proportion of its population in prison (649 per 100,000 population in 2018; Turkey had the second highest number at 321 persons, and Australia the third highest with 177 persons). This reality reveals the need to examine the problem of “crimsumerism” (Kornya et al. 2019, 112), which describes “the forced consumption of goods and services by people who have been impacted by the criminal legal system” (e.g., bail bond services and related financial debt). Drawing on this idea, consumer researchers can help provide broader insights into how contacts with law enforcement (e.g., a “traffic stop”) can have immediate or longer-lasting (and even potentially life-altering) effects on individual consumers and their social networks (e.g., their families).

Another example relates to SDG 12: the U.S. continues to produce the highest amounts of non-recycled municipal solid waste per capita (including household waste, i.e., neither recycled nor composted) in the world. Specifically, in 2018, each consumer in the U.S. generated 1.51 kg of non-recycled municipal solid waste each day, whereas consumers in Turkey (the second ranked country) generated “only” 1.02 kg. Notably, the UN’s long-term goal is to reduce this waste level to 0.6 kg per capita and day. (How) Can our field increase its efforts to develop a paradigm of “sufficiency marketing” to reduce waste more effectively?

Moreover, linking our article’s analyses with the SDG dashboards provides even more nuanced guidance for consumer research. For example, as figure4 exemplifies, consumer researchers can focus on the intersection between the country-specific progress on each SDG (or lack thereof), and the relevance of consumers for this progress. For illustrative purposes, we present this intersection for the U.S., France, and Singapore. Notably, figure4 shows parallels and distinctions between these countries, thereby guiding tailored research efforts.

(Dis)Incentives Related to Working on the SDGs

Bridging the disconnect between consumer research and the SDGs is unlikely to be enough. We also need to account for the reality that consumer research, like most scientific disciplines, is affected by fundamental (dis)incentives rooted in the field and its institutions (departments, business schools, professional organizations). Research on the sociology of science explores when and why scientists are willing and able to migrate from established domains to nascent fields, and how new ideas are diffused and possibly institutionalized within scientific communities (Braun 2012; Frickel and Gross 2005). As our analysis attests, SDG research has increased in JCR since the announcement of the SDGs—suggesting that migration is possible. Braun (2012) theorizes that individual scientists migrate toward nascent fields based on estimated probabilities of the benefits vis-à-vis the costs of the migration, their perceived ability to contribute to the nascent field, as well as the probability that the new field will be successfully institutionalized. This insight suggests that we need research on our field’s assessment of these factors related to the SDGs, which is a valuable extension to our work.

Endorsing and Leveraging Scholarly Passion for the SDGs

While the above cost–benefit analysis focusing on drivers of scientific migration is informative, such a rational lens might underestimate the relevance of scholarly passion. A utilitarian perspective might overlook that SDG-related research can be fueled by a researcher’s values, even serving as a “calling.” One step toward leveraging this energy is to license “passionate scholarship,” which emerges from a commitment to examine personally meaningful and socially relevant topics that are close to a scholar’s heart; that is, intrinsic interest in a topic might help to break through institutional and competitive pressures (not) to study certain topics (Courpasson 2013). The vision of passionate scholarship is to generate a culture where true engagement with issues fuels the intellectual spirit of scholarship and “in which scholars of all ages and backgrounds share not only knowledge, but also certain values and emotions based on their passion” to work on crucial issues for the future of real people (Courpasson 2013, 1247–8).8

Balancing Theory and Substance in Consumer Research

Consumer research as a field has traditionally focused on theoretical contributions to knowledge, and a more theory-focused understanding of consumer research is often considered more prestigious (Deighton 2007; MacInnis and Folkes 2010). Some scholars have warned against an overemphasis of theory at the expense of substantive contributions (Madan et al. 2023; Mick 2006; Pham 2013; Simonson et al. 2001). SDG-related research provides a potential corrective by emphasizing the acceptance of research in the perceptions of policymakers and practitioners. Relatedly, an SDG-oriented perspective in consumer research might include reassessing traditional boundaries of the field, including whether certain kinds of work belong in our journals and a related reevaluation of what consumer research is (not) (Deighton 2007).

We further suggest that SDG-related research provides an opportunity to combat the oft-lamented fragmentation of our field due to increasing “research specialization and an ensuing fragmentation of the mainstream of marketing thought” (Wilkie and Moore 2006, 224; also, Simonson et al. 2001). Researchers from disparate theoretical and methodological backgrounds can unite via their shared focus on the SDGs, thereby providing a true multi-disciplinary understanding of consumer behavior (MacInnis and Folkes 2010), consistent with the intended profile of JCR (consumerresearcher.com/about). Moreover, the SDGs offer a relatively straightforward way for consumer researchers to broaden their research focus and to engage more deeply with substantive issues (as underscored by, e.g., Pham 2013).

Revisiting the Role(s) of Theory in Research

We hasten to state that we neither propose atheoretical research nor that every paper ought to focus on the SDGs. Rather, we advocate for a balance of theorizing, data/methods, and results that can inform progress toward the SDGs. Given the (mis-)perception that SDG-related research is atheoretical (which emerged in our interviews), we note that theory can play various roles in research related to the SDGs. To illustrate: consumer research can leverage and extend existing theories with rich contextualization vis-à-vis the SDGs. For example, Antonucci et al. (2019) draw on life span and life course theories (which have received little attention in consumer research) to explore progress toward SDG 1 (Poverty) and SDG 5 (Gender equality); these theories help explain how poverty and inequality influence individuals and communities over time, and how certain interventions might help. In parallel, applying life span and life course theories to SDG 1 and SDG 5 has helped to extend these theories. Another example is Furnham’s (2019) review of the concept (and theories) of culture shock, which he links to SDG 10 (facilitating safe and responsible migration and mobility of people). These examples point to linkages between theories and the SDGs; notably, while not the focus of these papers, all three of these SDGs are linked to consumption, as well.

Novel theoretical insights can also emerge through consumer researchers’ investigations of the SDGs in areas related to consumption. For example, securitization theory (Balzacq 2019), both through its actor-lens and its process-lens, could be used to shed light on how climate change might be constructed as an “existential threat” so that consumers are more willing to adjust their behavior. Another approach might build on the various types of institutional theory (sociological, historical, rational, discursive) (Schmidt 2006) to examine how households or communities coordinate to reduce their carbon footprint.

Finally, consumer researchers can incorporate more types of theories—including theories that explain, comprehend, order, enact, and provoke (Sandberg and Alvesson 2021)—which can, in turn, help generate SDG-related insights in more diverse ways. For example, a provocative theory (which aims to reframe a phenomenon in an alternative, eye-opening, and disruptive way) is the Malthusian view that “populations will outgrow their resources unless they are “checked””—either preventatively (i.e., avoiding contributing to population growth) or positively (i.e., population reduction due to disease, conflicts/warfare, natural disasters) (Black, Borrion, and Mwabonje 2021, 2). Thus, research could examine, for example, how consumers respond to preventative checks (e.g., birth controls) or positive checks related to overpopulation (e.g., accepting hunger, poverty, conflict in parts of the world). Such provocative theories can challenge established views and provide opportunities to study why consumers might be willing (or not) to reduce their impact on the environment.

Implications for Research, Teaching, and Service in Light of the SDGs

For consumer research to promote a more sustainable world will require constituents from all facets of our profession to contribute, and we identify multiple ways to enhance our field’s contributions to the SDGs in web appendix I. Notably, these implications go well beyond the realm of research (admittedly, our main emphasis) to incorporate teaching and service, and to incorporate professional organizations and institutions. For example, the SDGs could become part of teaching in business schools across all levels. Consistent with this idea, one recent ranking of top MBA programs urged institutions to note that “student interest in learning about sustainability topics is growing” (Lewington 2022), and our own survey of business students (in the U.S., France, and Singapore) also revealed strong demand for the SDGs as part of business education (see web appendix J for an overview of our survey and some more nuanced insights). These initial insights support the idea that the SDGs have a meaningful role in higher (business) education, and we identify ways to enhance this role. We also identify implications related to research (publications, community, and conferences), teaching, and service to enhance contributions to sustainability in web appendix I.

In conclusion, the SDGs provide an opportunity to strengthen our insight into consumer behavior through broader and deeper contextualization, and a balance of theory and substance. By bridging the disconnect between the SDGs and consumer research and by leveraging scholarly passion, our field has an opportunity to enhance the impact of our research, teaching, and service—for the benefit of people, peace, prosperity, and the planet. We urge consumer researchers to rise to the moment and confront this existential zeitgeist.

DATA COLLECTION STATEMENT

Data for the main study (creating a database of all articles published in JCR, JCP, and JPP&M) were collected and analyzed by Abhishek Borah. These data were collected in the period February 2022–August 2022 and are currently stored in a password-protected folder on a server at the second author’s university. Data for the supplemental student surveys were collected at three universities. The U.S. student study was conducted by Maura Scott at Florida State University in November 2022; the Singapore student study was conducted at the National University of Singapore in March 2023 by Leonard Lee; the France student study was conducted at INSEAD in May 2023 by Abhishek Borah. The student studies were analyzed by Maura Scott. The original files for the student studies are stored on password-protected computers at the corresponding universities where the data were collected. Expert interviews were conducted by Martin Mende, Maura Scott, and Leonard Lee. The interviews took place from November 2022 to June 2023; transcripts of these interviews are stored on a password-protected computer at the third author’s university.

Author notes

Martin Mende (martin.mende@asu.edu) is Professor of Marketing and J. Willard and Alice S. Marriott Foundation Professor in Services Leadership at the W. P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA.

Abhishek Borah (abhishek.borah@insead.edu) is Associate Professor of Marketing at INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France.

Maura L. Scott (maura.scott@asu.edu) is Professor of Marketing and the Edward M. Carson Chair in Services Marketing at the W. P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA.

Lisa E. Bolton (leb14@psu.edu) is Professor of Marketing and Anchel Professor of Business Administration at Pennsylvania State University,State College, PA, USA.

Leonard Lee (leonard.lee@nus.edu.sg) is Director and Lloyd’s Register Foundation Professor at Lloyd’s Register Foundation Institute for the Public Understanding of Risk and Professor of Marketing, NUS Business School, National University of Singapore, Singapore.

The authors contributed equally, and their names are presented at random. The authors thank Editor Stacy Wood, the associate editor, and the three anonymous reviewers for their helpful guidance. The authors express their heartfelt gratitude toward the visionary scholars who generously shared their time and expertise during our expert interviews. The authors also thank Johannes Boegershausen for his valuable support. Supplementary materials are included in the web appendix accompanying the online version of this article.

3

Note that due to the nature of SDG 17, which is an all-encompassing operational goal that focuses on the implementation of SDGs 1–16, we did not use it in searching articles in JCR.

4

We followed prior work that pursued historical analysis of marketing journals via text mining of abstracts. As Wang et al. (2015) elaborate, a unique feature of JCR compared to other top marketing journals is that JCR did not use keywords to summarize articles until recently. Author-supplied keywords may overlook the connection with past and pioneering articles that authors may have missed in their intention to appeal to more recent topics. Thus, like Wang et al. (2015), we went beyond keywords and analyzed the content of the abstracts.

5

Altmetric (https://www.altmetric.com/) is a data company that tracks where published research is mentioned online.

6

Related to this dichotomy, we recognize that multiple factors influence whether papers before/after 2015 relate to SDGs (e.g., papers are not written and published in the same year the SDGs were announced). Therefore, we note the limitations of our exploratory analyses, which point to the need for future research on this issue.

7

We thank the Editor and Associate Editor for this suggestion.

8

While passion might appear to run contrary to objectivity (a hallmark of scientific thinking), passionate scholarship need not introduce bias but rather energize research via its alignment with stewardship to society and the planet. Passionate scholarship can serve as a bulwark against a publish-or-perish mindset that can lead to a short-term focus and the neglect of meaningful research (Becker and Lukka 2023; Guthrie and Parker 2017).

REFERENCES

© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com

Email alerts

Citing articles via

More from Oxford Academic