The post Research Insight | How Ridesharing Affects Alcohol Consumption and Drunk Driving appeared first on ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍű.

Article

Creating Equity by Design: A Conceptual Framework for Marketplace Inclusion, by Lama Lteif, Helen van der Sluis, Lauren G. Block, Luca Cian, Vanessa M. Patrick, and Maura L. Scott

The United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development emphasizes the need to reduce inequalities based on disability to ensure a life of dignity for all. However, the marketplace has yet to fully address the needs of consumers who experience systemic choice restrictions and daily barriers due to disabilities. This article offers a conceptual framework that identifies sources of sensory, cognitive, behavioral, and social (mis)matches in a consumer’s journey, leading to perceptions of marketplace inclusion or exclusion. The authors examine the role of inclusive design in facilitating the alignment of abilities and its impact on consumer well-being and firm profitability. The article concludes with a stakeholder-focused inclusive design research agenda at the intersection of public policy, firm strategy, and consumer well-being.

Commentaries

Disability as Identity: Advancing Innovation Through Hearing Ability Diversity, by Oden H. Groth, Michael Janger, and Diogo Hildebrand

The authors address the issue of disability identity through the lens of their research on Deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals.

A Neurodiversity Perspective on Fostering Marketplace Inclusion by Bridging Ability Mismatches, by Josephine Go Jefferies, Meredith Rhoads, Timothy J. Vogus, Cinthia B. Satornino, and Alicia A. Broderick

The authors build Lteif et al.’s framework by offering a neurodiversity-informed perspective.

Fostering Marketplace Inclusion: Health Equity Implications, by Monica C. LaBarge and Kameron Block

In this commentary, the authors extend Lteif et al.’s model to focus on the health equity implications consumers, organizations, and policy makers.

Comments on Creating Equity by Design, by Allyce C. Torres

The author discusses Lteif et al.’s piece from the perspective of her work with , a nonprofit resource for disability inclusion.

Teaching Resource: Starter Kit and 25 Mini Case Studies for Classroom Use

Vanessa Patrick (vpatrick@uh.edu) has created a comprehensive, modular teaching resource designed to help instructors integrate inclusive design into marketing and business education. The flip book combines conceptual foundations, research-based frameworks, pedagogical guidance, and 25 concise, real-world mini case studies that can be flexibly deployed across undergraduate, graduate and executive classrooms. Access here

The post Inclusive Design appeared first on ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍű.

The resource reframes inclusive design not as a niche or compliance-driven activity, but as a strategic marketing orientation that improves consumer well-being, expands markets, and enhances firm outcomes. The deck is deliberately structured to move instructors and students from why inclusive design matters, to how inclusive design works, to what it looks like in practice across industries.

This resource functions as (1) a starter kit for instructors new to inclusive design, (2) a modular teaching tool for experienced faculty, and (3) a bridge between research, practice, and pedagogy.

Brief Descriptions of the Contents of the Resource

I. Why Teach Inclusive Design in Marketing and Business?

The opening section establishes the pedagogical motivation for inclusive design. It critiques the traditional marketing focus on the “average” or “mainstream” consumer and demonstrates how this default approach systematically excludes marginalized and underrepresented groups

II. Core Principles of Inclusive Design

The next section introduces a clear, three-principle definition of inclusive design, making the concept accessible and teachable:

1. Design with the extreme user in mind
   Students learn that inclusive design begins by recognizing exclusion and starting from the margins rather than the mean.
2. Focus on facilitating a match
   Emphasis is placed on the fit between users, products, environments, and usage contexts—not just product features.
3. Benefit a more diverse consumer base
   The “curb-cut effect” illustrates how designing for those at the margins often improves experiences for everyone.

III. Marketplace Mismatches and Consumer Experience

A central conceptual contribution of the deck is the marketplace mismatch framework, which explains how exclusion arises when consumer abilities and marketplace design are misaligned.

Students are introduced to four types of mismatches:

• Sensory (seeing, hearing, touching)
• Cognitive (processing and understanding information)
• Behavioral (performing required actions)
• Social (feeling respected, seen, and included)

IV. Frameworks for Teaching and Application

Several teaching-friendly frameworks are introduced to help students diagnose and design for inclusion.

• ADDRESSING framework: Encourages students to ask, “Who are we unintentionally excluding?” across dimensions such as age, disability, religion, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, and national origin.
• DARE framework: Guides students through how consumers appraise inclusive (or exclusionary) design cues and how those appraisals shape emotions and behavior.
• Levels of inclusive design: Distinguishes between providing access, enabling engaged participation, and empowering success.
• MISMATCH framework: See above.

V. Pedagogical Guidance and Classroom Use

The deck provides instructors with teaching suggestions, including:

• How to sequence concepts across a class session or module
• Buzz-group discussions on barriers to inclusive design
• Experiential redesign exercises (e.g., redesigning everyday products for different user groups)
• Role-taking and perspective-taking exercises
• Integration of short videos and TED talks

VI. The 25 Mini Case Studies: Learning Through Practice

The heart of the flipping book is 25 concise mini case studies, designed to be discussed individually or comparatively. Each case highlights:

• A specific form of exclusion
• The resulting consumer–marketplace mismatch
• A concrete inclusive design solution
• Broader implications for firms and society

Case categories include:

• Consumer products (durables; e.g., footwear, appliances, furniture, backpacks)
• Inclusive services (e.g., financial services, hospitality, retail, theme parks)
• Consumer products (nondurables; e.g., beauty, personal care, grooming)
• Technology (e.g., gaming, navigation tools)
• Inclusive tourism (5 bonus cases; e.g., airlines, adventure parks, public spaces, social enterprises)

VII. Inclusive Tourism as a Special Topic

This section introduces:

• Inclusive tourism principles
• Marginalized groups as consumers and producers
• Examples of firms and destinations redesigning experiences, not just infrastructure

VIII. Additional Resources for Deepening Learning

The closing section curates:

• Academic and practitioner articles
• Managerial readings
• Talks and videos
• A carefully selected list of novels, memoirs, and nonfiction books to build empathy and perspective-taking

The post Teaching Inclusive Design: Starter Kit and 25 Mini Case Studies for Classroom Use appeared first on ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍű.

Submission Window: August 1–October 31, 2026

Manuscripts are currently being solicited for an upcoming special issue of the Journal of International Marketing (JIM) dedicated to Global Endorsers (Influencers, Celebrities, and Opinion Leaders) in Marketing.

Background

Globally, expenditure on influencer marketing have exploded, increasing from US$1.2 billion in 2006 to $33 billion in 2025 (Statista 2025). According to a report issued by Allied Market Research (2023), global growth in the influencer market will average 28.6% over the next seven years, making it a $199.6 billion industry. In conjunction with this growth, there has been a high volume of research on influencer marketing that has investigated a wide range of factors related to its effectiveness (Fowler and Thomas 2023; Hudders and Lou 2023). While there have been several studies of social media marketing strategies for global influencers (Kara et al. 2021) and for brands (e.g., Wahid et al. 2023), relatively little academic work has focused on the global and cultural aspects of the influencer phenomenon.

Numerous influencers have massive social media followings, including some who can be regarded as global endorsers, as their appeal cuts across national boundaries. From a marketing standpoint, there are important distinctions between global, regional, and local influencers, yet relatively little is known about influencers who have global followings and what distinguishes them from those who do not. There are also political leaders who can be considered narrowband influencers and global icons (Peres et al. 2020). “Extant research has found that there are “distinct associations attached to global vs. local brands” (Sayin et al. 2024, p. 1) that potentially impact consumer expectations and consumer responses in different contexts, but similar frameworks have not been applied to better understand influencer marketing on a global level.

By the same token, the role of world-famous celebrities as global endorsers is increasingly important in marketing. Global celebrities with the largest number of followers include Cristiano Ronaldo (1.02 billion followers), Selena Gomez (683.9 million followers), and Justin Bieber (596.3 million followers) (Duarte 2025). Celebrities with large followings are not restricted to the Western world; several Chinese celebrities having large followings (Sun et al. 2022), and Korean pop acts such as BTS have fandoms that extend beyond their home country market. While there is much literature on factors associated with celebrity endorsement success, our knowledge is limited to a local context (e.g., Bergkvist and Zhou 2016). Few studies have focused on global campaigns using celebrities whose appeal transcends national boundaries (e.g., Shah, Olya, and Monkhouse 2023), on celebrities in emerging markets (e.g., Roy et al. 2019) or on cultural nuances and celebrities (Winterich, Gangwar, and Grewal 2018).

Opinion leaders are another group of global endorsers. They are consumers with higher expertise and/or willingness to spend effort to understand products and propagate their recommendations to other consumers (Kuksov and Liao 2019). Opinion leaders differ from influencers because they do not necessarily hold positions of power and/or prestige, and they may not have vast number of followers. Yet, compared with the literature on influencers and celebrities, research on the role of opinion leaders in international marketing and global branding is far less developed.

Collectively, global influencers, celebrities, and opinion leaders can be viewed as global endorsers in international marketing. There is a need for studies from the branding, consumer, and firm perspectives in terms of evaluation of and reaction to global endorsers. From a branding perspective, concepts of global brands (Özsomer, Batra, and Steenkamp 2024), perceived brand globalness (Liu et al. 2021), and self-identification with global consumer culture (Cleveland and Laroche 2006)—among others—may help unpack multiple questions: What leads to global endorsers’ cross-border audience? What attributes associated with these endorsers lead to higher effectiveness (with some consumer groups) and, ultimately, whether and how global endorsers can contribute to glocal branding strategy outcomes (Schmidt-Devlin, Özsomer, and Newmeyer 2022)?

From a consumer perspective, global consumer culture theory suggests that there is a sizeable group of consumers, especially those who highly identify with global consumer culture, for whom perceived brand globalness is important in purchase decisions. Yet, antiglobalization forces have called into question the degree to which global brands have an advantage (e.g., Davvetas et al. 2023).  As a result, more insight into perceptions of global, regional, and local endorsers and their effectiveness is needed. Some recent studies of brand choice that have conceptualized globalness and localness as a product attribute (Davvetas et al. 2023; Steenkamp 2014) may provide a useful framework for such analyses, in addition to those that have focused on global versus local brand choice (e.g., Xie, Batra, and Peng 2015).

From a firm perspective, the selection, evaluation, and retention of global endorsers is a critical task. Frameworks, decision tools, and road maps that can assist in these processes are needed and are welcome for this special issue. The role of recent developments such as generative AI, deepfakes, large language models, and others are also ripe for investigation.

Topics

We welcome studies that address the topic of global endorsers from the diverse angles explained above, including new developments, theories, models, methods, and frameworks. Single-country and single-study papers will not be considered. Multidisciplinary collaboration between international marketing scholars and scholars from other business disciplines is encouraged. We are also open to a wide variety of methods, including experiments, surveys, qualitative methods, conceptual development, meta-analysis, bibliographic study, and text mining, among others.

Potential research questions that may be addressed include (but are not limited to):

Defining and Understanding the Appeal of Global Endorsers

• Who are global endorsers? How can we define them? What kind of roles do they play in global branding and global brand management?
• How and why do global endorsers attract consumers and influence their behavior?
• What are the effects of global endorsers, both positive and negative (the dark side of global endorsers) on brand reputation, values, and trust?

Global Endorser Effectiveness

• How are global endorsers best employed in global promotional programs?
• How do global endorsers become effective brand ambassadors, icons, etc.?

Global Endorser Scope and Reach

• How do global endorsers navigate across regions/markets in terms of standardization/adaptation/glocalization of their messages, execution, and delivery?
• What types of adaptation are effective, and under which circumstances?
• What kind of relationships do followers build with global endorsers (e.g., parasocial)?
• How does the size of audience, the reach, and the nature of the endorser (global/regional/local) affect these relationships?
• Are there differences in the perceived authenticity of an endorsement for local/global brands based on whether the endorser is global/local?

Trends and Regulatory Factors Affecting Global Endorsement

• Are antiglobalization forces creating more demand for local endorsers in some context?
• What are the institutional (legal, regulatory) issues such as privacy laws (e.g., General Data Protection Regulation, California Consumer Privacy Act) that influence the ability to effectively employ global endorsers? What are best and worst institutional settings for global endorsers?

Differences in Endorser Strategy Based on Country or Level of Economic Development

• Are there differences in the way in which endorsers from some markets (e.g., China, the U.S., Germany, Brazil) are portrayed when used globally in comparison to others?
• Are global endorsers perceived differently in emerging versus advanced markets and, if so, should they be used in different ways as part of promotional programs?

Submission Guidelines

Submissions should follow . The manuscript length should be no greater than 50 pages, properly formatted and inclusive of title, abstract, keywords, text, references, tables, figures, footnotes, and print appendices (web appendices do not count toward the page limit).

The submission window is August 1, 2026 through October 31, 2026

‱ Authors should select “Special Issue” as their “Manuscript Type.” Please also note in the cover letter that the submission is for the special issue on Global Endorsers.

‱ All articles will undergo double-anonymized peer review process.

‱ Authors will be notified the first round of decision on their manuscript by January 31, 2027.

‱ The anticipated publication date for the special issue is in late 2027 or early 2028, depending on revision times.

‱ For additional information regarding the special issue, please contact the guest editors at jimSIglobalEndorsers@gmail.com.

References

Allied Market Research (2023), “Influencer Marketing Market to Reach $199.6 Billion, Globally, by 2032 at 28.6% CAGR: Allied Market Research,” PR Newswire (November 14), https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/influencer-marketing-market-to-reach-199-6-billion-globally-by-2032-at-28-6-cagr-allied-market-research-301987451.html.

Bentley, Kara, Charlene Chu, Cristina Nistor, Ekin Pehlivan, and Taylan Yalcin (2021), “Social Media Engagement for Global Influencers.” Journal of Global Marketing 34 (3), 205–19.

Bergkvist, Lars and Kris Q. Zhou (2016), “Celebrity Endorsements: A Literature Review and Research Agenda.” International Journal of Advertising, 35 (4), 642–63.

Cleveland, Mark and Michel Laroche (2006), “Acculturaton to the Global Consumer Culture: Scale Development and Research Paradigm, Journal of Business Research, 60 (3), 249-259.

Davvetas, Vasileios, Christina Sichtmann, Charalampos (Babis) Saridakis, and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2023), “The Global/Local Product Attribute: Decomposition, Trivialization, and Price Trade-Offs in Emerging and Developed Markets,” Journal of International Marketing, 31 (3), 19–40.

Duarte, Fabio (2025), “Most Followed Accounts on Social Media (2025),” Exploding Topics (July 8), .

Fowler, Kendra, and Veronica L. Thomas (2023), “Influencer Marketing: A Scoping Review and a Look Ahead,” Journal of Marketing Management, 39 (11–12), 933–64.

Hudders, Liselot and Chen Lou (2022), “The Rosy World of Influencer Marketing? Its Bright and Dark Sides, and Future Research Recommendations,” International Journal of Advertising, 42 (1), 151–61.

Kuksov, Dmitri, and Chenxi Liao (2019), “Opinion Leaders and Product Variety,” Marketing Science, 38 (5), 812–34.

Liu, Hao, Klaus Schoefer, Fernando Fastoso, and Efstathia Tzemou (2021), “Perceived Brand Globalness/Localness: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Directions for Further Research,” Journal of International Marketing, 29 (1), 77–94.

Özsomer, AyƟegĂŒl, Rajeev Batra, and Jan-Benedict EM Steenkamp (2024), “Brands and Branding around the World,” Journal of International Marketing, 32 (3), 1–4.

Peres, Renana, Sunali Talwar, Liav Alter, Michal Elhanan, and Yuval Friedmann (2020), “Narrowband Influencers and Global Icons: Universality and Media Compatibility in the Communication Patterns of Political Leaders Worldwide,” Journal of International Marketing, 28 (1), 48–65.

Roy, Subhadip, Abhijit Guha, Abhijit Biswas, and Druv Grewal (2019), “Celebrity Endorsements in Emerging Markets: Align Endorsers with Brands or with Consumers?” Journal of International Business Studies, 50 (1), 295–317.

Sayin, E., NilĂŒfer Aydınoğlu, AyƟegĂŒl Özsomer, and Zeynep GĂŒrhan-Canlı (2024), “Shifting Standards in Consumer Evaluations of Global and Local Brands After Product-Harm Crises,” Journal of International Marketing, 32 (3), 83–100.

Schmidt-Devlin, Ellen, AyƟegĂŒl Özsomer, and Casey E. Newmeyer (2022), “How to Go GloCal: Omni-Brand Orientation Framework,” Journal of International Marketing, 30 (4), 1–20.

Shah, Zarhrah, Hossain Olya, and Lien Le Monkhouse (2023), “Developing Strategies for International Celebrity Branding: A Comparative Analysis Between Western and South Asian Cultures,” International Marketing Review, 40 (1), 102–26.

Statista (2025), “Influencer Marketing Market Size Worldwide from 2015 to 2025,” (accessed February 6, 2025), .

Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M. (2014), “How Global Brands Create Firm Value: The 4V Model,” International Marketing Review, 31 (1), 5–29.

Sun, Yan, Rachel Wang, Dongbei Cao, and Rouyi Lee (2022), “Who Are Social Media Influencers for Luxury Fashion Consumption of the Chinese Gen Z? Categorisation and Empirical Examination,” Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 26 (4), 603–21.

Wahid, Risqo, Heikki Karjaluoto, Kimmo Taiminen and Diah Isnaini Asiati (2023), “Becoming TikTok Famous: Strategies for Global Brands to Engage Consumers in an Emerging Market,” Journal of International Marketing, 31 (1), 106–23.

Winterich, Karen Page, Manish Gangwar, and Rajdeep Grewal (2018), “When Celebrities Count: Power Distance Beliefs and Celebrity Endorsements,” Journal of Marketing, 82 (3), 70–86.

Xie, Yi, Rajeev Batra, and Siqing Peng (2015), “An Extended Model of Preference Formation Between Global and Local Brands: The Roles of Identity Expressiveness, Trust, and Affect,” Journal of International Marketing, 23 (1), 50–71.

Special Issue Editors

Charles R. Taylor is the Charles R. “Ray” Taylor is the John A. Murphy Professor of Marketing at Villanova University and Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Marketing and Consumer Insights. He currently served as Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Advertising.  Taylor has published more than 125 peer-reviewed journal articles in leading marketing and advertising journals in addition to several books and book chapters. Professor Taylor is a Past-President of the President of the American Academy of Advertising.  He is the recipient of the Ivan L. Preston Award for Outstanding Lifetime Contribution to Advertising Research from the American Academy of Advertising and the Flemming Hansen Award for Outstanding Contribution to Advertising from the European Advertising Academy.  His work has also received the Hans B. Thorelli Award from the Journal of International Marketing, two Best Paper Awards from the Journal of Advertising, and the Charles Slater Award.  Taylor is also a Senior Contributor to Forbes.com.

Shintaro Okazaki is Chair in Marketing at King’s Business School, King’s College London, UK. He is a former Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Advertising, and currently serve as an Associate Editor of the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing. He has published more than 100 articles in leading marketing and advertising journals. Okazaki is a Past-President of the European Advertising Academy. His awards include the Best Paper Award of the Journal of Advertising, Charles R. Goeldner Article of Excellence Award of the Journal of Travel Research, the Best Reviewer Award of the International Journal of Advertising, the Best Researcher Award of the KDD Foundation, and Best Academic of the Year of the Mobile Marketing Association. Before entering academia, he has worked in the industry for more than 20 years, holding a managerial position at a multinational corporation in Tokyo.

Chen Lou is an Associate Professor in the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Her research focuses on the effects of influencer advertising, social media advertising, content marketing, and cross-cultural advertising, and consumer behavior. She is a recipient of the American Academy of Advertising’s (AAA) Mary Alice Shaver Promising Professor Award, which honors an early-career researcher who has demonstrated excellence in advertising research and education. She also gained the Best Article Awards from the Journal of Advertising, Journal of Interactive Advertising, and Mass Communication and Society as well as other research awards in conferences. She serves as an Associate Editor in the International Journal of Advertising and the Journal of Interactive Advertising.

AysegĂŒl Özsomer is Professor of Marketing at Koç University, Istanbul, TĂŒrkiye. Her research focuses on global branding, brands from emerging marketing and marketing mix across economic cycles. She has published in top marketing journals such as Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, IJRM, Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of Business Research, Journal of International Marketing, among others. Her papers have received several awards, such as the S. Tamer Cavusgil Award for the best Journal of International Marketing article in 2023 and 2013, and the Gerald E. Hills Best Paper Award in 2011 for the 10-year impact made to research on entrepreneurial marketing and market orientation.  She is the coauthor of the book “The New Emerging Market Multinationals: Four Strategies for Disrupting Markets and Building Brands” published by McGraw-Hill (2012). Currently, she serves as the Editor-in-Chief of Journal of International Marketing.

The post Call for Papers | Journal of International Marketing: Global Endorsers in Marketing appeared first on ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍű.

Submission Window: August 1–September 30, 2026

Sustainable innovation is rapidly becoming a cornerstone of global marketing strategy, reshaping how firms create value and fulfill broader societal responsibilities. As climate change, resource depletion, and social equity concerns intensify, marketing scholars and practitioners are increasingly seeking to understand how sustainability and innovation intersect within international contexts. The Marketing Science Institute’s 2024 Research Priorities highlight the urgency of examining how sustainable marketing and innovation shape the consumer journey, business performance, and societal outcomes (Marketing Science Institute 2024). Firms must innovate not only to meet growing demand for responsible products but also to navigate complex regulatory landscapes and stakeholder expectations, thereby driving competitive advantage, long-term growth, and the greater good (Grinstein et al. 2022; Varadarajan et al. 2021; White et al. 2024). Deeper insights are needed into the mechanisms through which sustainable innovations influence consumer behavior, brand loyalty, and firm performance across diverse cultural and market settings (Varadarajan 2023; White et al. 2019).

Recent research also highlights the importance of understanding when and how firms should standardize or adapt their sustainable marketing strategies across international markets and calls for further research on aligning operational and financial performance with broader sustainability objectives (Griffith 2021). This need is echoed in foundational work from the Journal of International Marketing, which explores the roles of public policy, global social innovation, and demarketing for sustainability, especially in base-of-the-pyramid markets, and discusses the interplay between corporate, consumer, and government responsibilities in achieving sustainable development goals (Varadarajan 2014, 2023; Varadarajan et al. 2021).

This special issue aims to advance theoretical, empirical and practical understanding of global sustainability and innovation in international marketing. We invite submissions that investigate sustainable marketing strategies, innovation diffusion, responsible innovation, and their implications for consumers, firms, and societies. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:

• Integration of sustainability into international marketing strategies and business models.
• Green innovation strategies for adapting sustainable products and services to diverse cultural, regulatory and institutional environments in international markets.
• Consumer responses to sustainability communication, green advertising, and pro-environmental behavior in global markets.
• The role of digital technologies (e.g., AI, blockchain) in enhancing transparency and driving sustainable marketing innovation internationally.
• Digital transformation as a driver for reducing the environmental footprint of global marketing operations and enhancing sustainable value delivery.
• Responsible innovation, including ethical considerations, stakeholder engagement, and governance mechanisms that ensure innovations contribute positively to society and the environment from a global perspective.
• Cross-cultural and cross-industry patterns in the adoption and diffusion of sustainable innovations.
• Implementation and communication of circular economy business models by multinational firms in developed and emerging markets.
• The impact of sustainable innovation on brand loyalty, customer engagement, and firm performance in international contexts.
• Authentic brand activism and its influence on consumer trust and brand equity regarding sustainability and innovation across different countries.
• Innovations in sustainable supply chain management and their marketing to international stakeholders.
• The effectiveness of social commerce and influencer-driven campaigns in promoting sustainable consumption behaviors globally.
• Regulatory innovation as a catalyst for sustainable marketing adaptation and compliance in international business.
• Metrics and methodologies for evaluating the effectiveness of sustainability initiatives in international marketing.
• Global standardization and local adaptation of sustainable innovation across markets and downstream consequences on customer satisfaction and firm performance.

Recent research has expanded sustainable international business model innovations, emphasizing the shift from linear to circular economies and the need for adaptation across diverse markets. Scholars have shown how multinational enterprises can spearhead climate action and sustainability initiatives while managing complex global supply chains (Marano et al. 2024; Zaheer 2025). The evolution of sustainability marketing—from traditional green marketing to circular‐economy models, anticonsumption, and regulatory frameworks—has been comprehensively documented (White et al. 2024). Innovation-management research identifies responsible, business model and public value innovation as critical pathways for advancing sustainability in global markets (Spanjol et al. 2024), while empirical evidence links board gender diversity and culturally feminine values to stronger environmental innovation outcomes (Bazel-Shoham et al. 2023).

The academic literature also highlights the breadth and structure of sustainability research in marketing, providing a basis for future research opportunities. Empirical studies demonstrate that firms’ efforts to “green” the marketing mix can yield significant business and societal benefits, though outcomes often depend on context and execution (Leonidou et al., 2013). Additionally, recent frameworks guide marketers in shifting consumer behavior toward sustainability, offering evidence-based strategies for overcoming barriers and fostering pro-environmental choices (White et al., 2019). In line with this, work in international marketing underscores the need for frameworks that guide firms in balancing global consistency with local adaptation and in measuring the impact of sustainability initiatives on both business outcomes and societal well-being (Griffith, 2021; Varadarajan, 2014; Varadarajan et al., 2021).

Collectively, these studies establish a robust theoretical and empirical foundation for understanding how sustainability and innovation intersect within international marketing, offering valuable insights for scholars and practitioners navigating global sustainable business practices. They also provide a springboard for new research on sustainability and innovation within the international marketing context.

Submission Guidelines

For this special issue, we welcome conceptual, empirical, and methodological papers that address the theme of “Global Sustainability and Innovation in International Marketing.” All submissions will undergo the Journal of International Marketing double-anonymized peer review process. Papers targeting this special issue should be submitted through the JIM submission system () starting on August 1, 2026, with the final deadline for submissions being September 30, 2026.

Conference Special Session

An associated special session on “Global Sustainability and Innovation in International Marketing” will be held at the . Submission to this special session is not required for submission to the JIM special issue. Authors submitting to the special session should submit a five-page, double-spaced extended abstract to the 2026 ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍű Global Marketing Conference by November 1, 2025. They will receive feedback from the guest editors. Please note that submission of an extended abstract does not guarantee inclusion in the special session. Authors whose abstracts are not selected for the special session are still eligible to submit their complete manuscripts to the Special Issue.

For detailed submission instructions and formatting guidelines, please visit the Journal of International Marketing website. For questions and inquiries regarding the special issue, please contact Goksel Yalcinkaya (goksel.yalcinkaya@unh.edu) and AyƟegĂŒl Özsomer (aozsomer@ku.edu.tr).

Key Dates

• Extended abstract (five pages, double-spaced) submission deadline to ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍű Global Conference: November 1, 2025
• Feedback from the Special Issue Editors: November 15, 2025
• ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍű Global Conference special session: May 27–29, 2026 (Nice, France)
• JIM special issue manuscript submission window: August 1–September 30, 2026
• Notification of first editorial review: December 31, 2026
• Expected publication issue: December 2027 or March 2028

We look forward to your valuable contributions to this special issue.

References

Bazel-Shoham, Ofra, Sang Mook Lee, Surender Munjal, and Amir Shoham (2023), “Board Gender Diversity, Feminine Culture, and Innovation for Environmental Sustainability,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 41 (2), 293–322.

Griffith, David A. (2021), “Connecting Sustainable Marketing and International Marketing Strategy Standardization/Adaptation: Research Opportunities,” Journal of Sustainable Marketing, 2 (2), 1–7.

Grinstein, Amir, Kelly Hewett, and Petra Riefler (2022), “Well-Being in a Global World—The Role of International Marketing: An Editorial,” Journal of International Marketing, 30 (2), 1–4.

Leonidou, Constantinos N., Constantine S. Katsikeas, and Neil A. Morgan (2013), “‘Greening’ the Marketing Mix: Do Firms Do It and Does It Pay Off?” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41 (2), 151–70.

Marano, Valentina, Miriam Wilhelm, Tatiana Kostova, Jonathan Doh, and Sjoerd Beugelsdijk (2024), “Multinational Firms and Sustainability in Global Supply Chains: Scope and Boundaries of Responsibility,” Journal of International Business Studies, 55 (4), 413–28. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-024-00706-6

Marketing Science Institute (2024), “2024 Research Priorities,” .

Spanjol, Jelena, Charles H. Noble, Markus Baer, Marcel L.A.M. Bogers, Jonathan Bohlmann, Ricarda B. Bouncken, Ludwig Bstieler, Luigi M. De Luca, Rosanna Garcia, Gerda Gemser, Dhruv Grewal, Martin Hoegl, Sabine Kuester, Minu Kumar, Ruby Lee, Dominik Mahr, Cheryl Nakata, Andrea Ordanini, Aric Rindfleisch, Victor P. Seidel, Alina Sorescu, Roberto Verganti, and Martin Wetzels (2024), “Fueling Innovation Management Research: Future Directions and Five Forward-Looking Paths,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 41 (1), 1–56.

Varadarajan, Rajan (2014), “Toward Sustainability: Public Policy, Global Social Innovations for Base-of-the-Pyramid Markets, and Demarketing for a Better World,” Journal of International Marketing, 22 (2), 1–20.

Varadarajan, Rajan (2023), “Sustainable Innovations and Sustainable Product Innovations: Definitions, Potential Avenues, and Outlook,” in The PDMA Handbook of Innovation and New Product Development, 4th ed., L. Bstieler and C.H. Noble, eds. John Wiley & Sons, 59–80.

Varadarajan, Rajan, Roman B. Welden, S. Arunachalam, Michael Haenlein, and Shaphali Gupta (2021), “Digital Product Innovations for the Greater Good and Digital Marketing Innovations in Communications and Channels: Evolution, Emerging Issues, and Future Research Directions,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 39 (2), 482–501.

White, Katherine, Aylin Cakanlar, Shakti Sethi, and Remi Trudel (2024), “The Past, Present, and Future of Sustainability Marketing: How Did We Get Here and Where Might We Go?” Journal of Business Research, 187, 115056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.115056

White, Katherine, Rashad Habib, and David J. Hardisty (2019), “How to SHIFT Consumer Behaviors to Be More Sustainable: A Literature Review and Guiding Framework,” Journal of Marketing, 83 (3), 22–49.

Zaheer, Srilata (2025), “The Sustainability of MNE Sustainability Initiatives,” Journal of International Business Studies, 56 (4), 491–500.

The post Call for Papers | Journal of International Marketing: Global Sustainability and Innovation in International Marketing appeared first on ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍű.

Increasing the ecological value of marketing research by examining the interactions among and between business actors, institutions, and systems can help make scholarly marketing research more meaningful and impactful (Van Heerde et al. 2021). Incorporating and integrating multiple stakeholder perspectives and addressing the corresponding trade-offs can strengthen the rigor and relevance of an inquiry, with the potential to enrich outcomes for all stakeholders (e.g., Berry et al. 2024). 

Managers, academics, and policy makers must address social and business challenges against the backdrop of stakeholders’ divergent priorities and perspectives on important issues. Indeed, many of the world’s most pressing topics affect and are affected by multiple stakeholders in areas such as (but not limited to) the infodemics crisis, the need to deliver quality health care and financial services for all, the sustainability of the planet, the ability to effectively leverage technology, unintended consequences of marketing activities, global differences in social/political priorities, and marketing’s role in advancing human rights. Organizations and managers must navigate the needs of multiple stakeholders, including consumers, communities, customers, employees, executives, investors, and society. A stakeholder view, in which the organization focuses on the well-being of a variety of stakeholders in the value chain, can align with an organization’s other longer-term goals, such as profitability (Berry et al. 2024).

We recognize that many real-world problems combine a marketing issue for one stakeholder with financial, human resource, social, cultural, or even moral issues for another stakeholder. This contributes to the richness and ecological validity of research involving multiple stakeholders. As such, we welcome research that takes a multidisciplinary perspective as long as the marketing lens plays a key role in theorizing and analysis.

The special issue is not limited to a particular context, but for illustrative purposes, consider health care as an example. Consumers need affordable, high-quality health care, and communities need equitable health outcomes. A government may prioritize accessible health care for its citizens, while health care providers seek to run a profitable business with a respectable reputation. Insurers need to transparently provide coverage while containing costs. Health care employees require a reasonable workload and fair compensation. Yet, trade-offs exist that limit favorable outcomes for all stakeholders in a health care ecosystem. Given any complex ecosystem, how can marketing explore the needs, decisions, and processes of multiple stakeholders to shed light on the tensions and necessary trade-offs for all stakeholders? What trade-offs are acceptable, and what are the potential impacts of such trade-offs (e.g., positive and negative financial implications, measurable advancements toward societal goals)?

The editorial mission of the Journal of Marketing is to develop and disseminate “knowledge about real-world marketing questions useful to scholars, educators, managers, policy makers, consumers, and other societal stakeholders around the world.” Our empirical research to date has been effective in reflecting typically one or two sets of conventional stakeholder perspectives (e.g., purely consumer- or firm-focused, salesperson–customer dyad-focused).

We introduce a special issue of the Journal of Marketing focused on understanding the challenges and opportunities related to tensions and divergent priorities among multiple stakeholders, including new and relevant stakeholders.

This special issue encourages empirical research and analytical modeling that takes a 360-degree view to include new and relevant stakeholders in the research process, especially work that builds on existing stakeholders while broadening existing lenses via new stakeholder connections. We seek papers that uncover insights into how to deliver economic returns for firms while also delivering broader beneficial contributions on topics such as individual growth and well-being, societal cohesion, firm investment in organizational values, democratic success, and social challenges.

Many business questions involve various stakeholders who may have competing interests. For instance, MacInnis et al. (2020) identify key marketplace stakeholders that influence consumers and customers as including society, media, government and nongovernment organizations, and businesses, among others. As another example, the United Nations recognizes “major groups” of stakeholders as including women, children, and youth; indigenous peoples and their communities; nongovernmental organizations; local authorities; farmers; workers and trade unions; business and industry; and the scientific and technological community (United Nations, n.d.). In marketing, an integrated stakeholder perspective might consider not only consumers, frontline service employees, and retailers or other businesses but also communities where a product is produced (yet not consumed), measurable impacts on the environment or society, internal impacts on employees, behaviors of policy makers or governmental agents (e.g., Wang et al. 2021), top management teams, shareholders and investors, or the media (at the local, regional, and/or [inter-/supra-] national levels).

Key Criteria for Publication in the Special Issue

The special issue is interested in new marketing knowledge that helps address substantial and important societal and business issues, generated through the perspectives of multiple stakeholders (three or more). Multidisciplinary research is welcome though not required. Empirical research and analytical modeling are welcomed and encouraged.

Key criteria that will be used to assess a submission include:

• Scope of the research question. We encourage research that seeks to tackle large-scale societal-business challenges rather than narrow or incremental topics.
• Novelty of the insights.
• The extent to which the novel insights are derived from at least three key stakeholders. New, relevant stakeholder perspectives are encouraged.
• The magnitude of the behavioral change and/or its impact stemming from the work, such as the number of people likely to change their behavior based on the research (in the short or long term) or the number of people who may benefit from the findings if implemented. These can include managers, policy makers, nonprofits, consumers, and communities, etc.
• The broad potential impact of the work.

Submission deadline (now extended!): July 1, 2026

All manuscripts will be reviewed as a cohort for this special issue of the Journal of Marketing. All submissions will go through Journal of Marketing’s double-anonymized review and follow standard norms and processes. Submissions must be made via the journal’s , with author guidelines available here. For any queries, feel free to reach out to the special issue editors.

Special Sessions

Everyone interested in learning more about this special issue is warmly invited to attend the Zoom webinar on Monday, December 15, 11 a.m. ET. .

References

Berry, Leonard L., Tracey S. Danaher, Timothy Keiningham, Lerzan Aksoy, and Tor W. Andreassen (2024), “Social Profit Orientation: Lessons from Organizations Committed to Building a Better World,” Journal of Marketing, 89 (2), 1–19.

MacInnis, Deborah J., Vicki G. Morwitz, Simona Botti, Donna L. Hoffman, Robert V. Kozinets, Don R. Lehmann, John Lynch, Cornelia Pechmann (2020), “Creating Boundary-Breaking, Marketing-Relevant Consumer Research,” Journal of Marketing, 84 (2), 1–23.

United Nations (n.d.), “Major Groups and Other Stakeholders,” .

Van Heerde, Harald J., Christine Moorman, C. Page Moreau, and Robert W. Palmatier, (2021), “Reality Check: Infusing Ecological Value into Academic Marketing Research,” Journal of Marketing, 85 (2), 1–13.

Wang, Yanwen, Michael Lewis, and Vishal Singh (2021), “Investigating the Effects of Excise Taxes, Public Usage Restrictions, and Antismoking Ads across cigarette brands.” Journal of Marketing 85 (3), 150–67.

Go to the Journal of Marketing

The post Call for Papers | Journal of Marketing: Analyzing Trade-Offs and Advancing Solutions to Society’s Challenges Using an Integrated Multiple Stakeholders Perspective appeared first on ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍű.

The post Research Insight | When Consumers Prefer Human Advice over AI—And What Policymakers Should Know appeared first on ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍű.

Given the growing use and implications of generative AI (GenAI), this special issue seeks to offer new, pertinent insights related to how individuals and firms can and should address it, as well as which types of policies and regulations are necessary to ensure its promise is not overcome by its perils. This special issue brings together nine articles that collectively examine the multifaceted (potential) effects of GenAI on marketing practices and its associated public policy implications. .

Articles in the Special Issue Include:

“,” by V. Kumar, Philip Kotler, Shaphali Gupta, and Bharath Rajan

By evaluating the pattern of generative AI (GAI) use by businesses in marketing, this study aims to understand the subsequent impact on society and develop policy implications that promote its beneficial use. To this end, the authors develop an organizing framework that contends that the usage of GAI models by businesses for marketing purposes creates promises and perils for society through a specific business process. This business process is represented by the action → capabilities → transformation → impact link in the proposed framework. Additionally, the authors find that the level of technology infrastructure, skilled personnel, and data access moderates the influence of GAI on businesses’ ability to develop technology-driven capabilities. Furthermore, adaptive leadership and management strategies moderate the impact of these capabilities on technology-enabled business transformations. This research is the first study to critically evaluate the use of GAI in marketing from a public policy perspective. The study concludes with an agenda for future research.

“,” by Erik Hermann and Stefano Puntoni

Generative AI (GenAI) is breaking new ground in emulating human capabilities, and content generation may only be the beginning. In this work, the authors systematize and illustrate promising areas of application of GenAI in marketing. They lay out a conceptual framework along two dimensions: (1) GenAI impact (i.e., human enhancement, human replacement) and (2) the marketing cycle stage (i.e., marketing research, marketing strategy formulation, marketing actions related to the marketing mix instruments). Based on the AI ethics literature, the authors then introduce a set of principles (i.e., ASSURANCE: Autonomy, Security, SUstainability, Representativeness, Accountability, Nonbiasedness and nondiscrimination, Crediting, Empowerment) to enable marketers to address the risks and challenges of GenAI and thereby achieve beneficial outcomes for companies, consumers, and society at large. Finally, they delineate the public policy implications for each principle and illustrate avenues for future research.

“,” by Manhui Jin, Zhiyong Yang, Traci L. Freling, and Narayanan Janakiraman

Many policy makers and governmental organizations have started using generative artificial intelligence (AI) to provide advice to individuals. However, prior research paints an unclear picture of individuals’ receptiveness to the outputs generated by AI, relative to those from human advisers. While some studies show that individuals prefer outputs generated by humans over AI, others present an opposite pattern. To reconcile these mixed findings, this research differentiates two perspectives where relative preferences have been widely examined: (1) a bystander perspective, where consumers evaluate the content generated by human versus AI agents, and (2) a decision-maker perspective, where consumers accept recommendations made by the agents. The authors find that although there is a general trend of preferring human advice over AI advice in individual decision-making—exhibiting a “human superiority effect”—there is no significant difference between human and AI content preferences during bystander evaluations. Additionally, psychological distance constitutes an important contextual moderator explaining the relative preference for human versus AI recommendations. Specifically, when decision-making circumstances are perceived to be psychologically distant (e.g., low personal relevance), the human superiority effect is attenuated. Theoretical contributions are discussed, along with practical implications for businesses and governmental organizations.

“,” by Wolfgang Messner, Tatum Greene, and Josephine Matalone

Large language models (LLMs) are able to engage in natural-sounding conversations with humans, showcasing unprecedented capabilities for information retrieval and automated decision support. They have disrupted human–technology interaction and the way businesses operate. However, technologies based on generative artificial intelligence are known to hallucinate, misinform, and display biases introduced by the massive datasets on which they are trained. Existing research indicates that humans may unconsciously internalize these biases, which can persist even after they stop using the programs. In this study, the authors explore the cultural self-perception of LLMs by prompting ChatGPT (OpenAI) and Bard (Google) with value questions derived from the GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) project. The findings reveal that LLMs’ cultural self-perception is most closely aligned with the values of English-speaking countries and countries characterized by economic competitiveness. It is crucial for all members of society to understand how LLMs function and to recognize their potential biases. If left unchecked, the “black-box” nature of AI could reinforce human biases, leading to the inadvertent creation and training of even more biased models.

“,” by Yingting Wen and Sandra Laporte

As generative AI technologies advance, understanding their capability to emulate human-like experiences in marketing communication becomes crucial. This research examines whether generative AI can create experiential narratives that resonate with humans in terms of embodied cognition, affect, and lexical diversity. An automated text analysis reveals that while reviews generated by ChatGPT 3.5 exhibit lower levels of embodied cognition and lexical diversity compared with reviews by human experts, they display more positive affect (Study 1a). However, human raters struggle to notice these differences, rating half of the selected reviews from AI higher in embodied cognition and usefulness (Study 1b). Instances of hallucination in AI-generated content were detected by human raters. For social media posts, the more sophisticated ChatGPT 4 model demonstrates superior perceived lexical diversity and leads to higher purchase intentions in unbranded content compared with human copywriters (Study 2). This research evaluates the performance of large language models in generating experiential marketing narratives. The comparative studies reveal the models’ strengths in presenting positive emotions and influencing purchase intent while identifying limitations in embodied cognition and lexical diversity compared with human-authored content. The findings have implications for marketers and policy makers in understanding generative AI’s potential and risks in marketing.

“,” by Shashank Shaurya Dubey, Vivek Astvansh, and Praveen K. Kopalle

The advent of generative AI (GenAI) has caused consternation across the industrial landscape. The financial industry is no exception. The scramble to find GenAI solutions in the financial industry has led to a proliferation in the academic and practitioner literature on the subject. However, the field of knowledge remains scattered. The authors offer four deliverables. First, using a survey of the literature and interviews of managers in financial firms, they create a funnel-shaped, two-stage framework of how GenAI can empower financial businesses. The top stage comprises seven GenAI value propositions for financial firms, condensed into the EMPOWER acronym. The bottom stage includes three functions for each proposition. Second, the authors propose ten novel GenAI-based applications spanning the five verticals of financial services, thus extending the current industrial focus of GenAI applications. Third, they outline the benefits and risks of these GenAI applications, visualizing them in a benefit–risk matrix to assist financial managers in prioritizing these applications. Fourth, they propose research questions to guide academic research and policy making at the intersection of GenAI and finance.

“,” by Lisa BrĂŒggen, Robert Gianni, Floris de Haan, Jens Hogreve, Darian Meacham, Thomas Post, and Minou van der Werf

This article presents a first step in identifying the ethical issues of AI-based financial advice. Consumers must navigate an ever more complex array of financial decisions. (Generative) AI-based financial advice may increase access to and acceptance of financial advice and strengthen consumers’ financial well-being. However, significant ethical challenges exist in designing, developing, and deploying AI-based financial advice. To analyze the perils and pitfalls of AI-based financial advice, the authors develop a definition of what constitutes good AI-based financial advice and provide a first assessment of ethical challenges related to AI-based financial advice. The iterative multistakeholder approach, including workshops and semistructured interviews with consumers and experts, results in an ethical discourse structured around the four fundamental values of the European Commission’s Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI—human autonomy, explicability, fairness, and prevention of harm—and trust as the overall objectives. Based on the analyses, the authors derive a simple yet comprehensive AI Ethics Framework for Financial Advice. This reflection framework guides public policy makers, managers of financial service providers, and technology developers in incorporating ethical discourse in developing and deploying (generative) AI-based financial advice.

“,” by Meike Eilert and Stefanie Robinson

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has sparked a lot of innovation in the servicescape to improve consumer experiences, primarily due to its ability to interact with consumers and personalize information based on the consumer’s input. The authors develop a framework grounded in the social model of disability to propose how GenAI can be a tool to cocreate otherwise disabling servicescape information design. Consumers with disabilities can use this technology to modify, transform, prioritize, and generate servicescape information to fit their individual accessibility needs and mitigate disabling servicescape conditions, resulting in more positive servicescape experiences, better access, and inclusion. Institutions such as industry, government, and higher education play a dual role in this framework. While these institutions are responsible for creating servicescapes with disabling information design, they are also key collaborators that support consumers with disabilities in cocreating GenAI solutions and ensuring their effective and safe use. This framework has important implications for the universal design of servicescapes and technologies supporting consumers with disabilities, as well as the various institutions that can collaborate to facilitate inclusive and safe technology-enabled, smart environments.

“,” by Unnati Narang, Vishal Sachdev, and Ruichun Liu

Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) is increasingly being integrated into marketing education and is reshaping the skill sets required in marketing careers. While research has highlighted the promise and perils of incorporating GAI into education, there remains a need for a comprehensive framework to guide its effective use. In this research, the authors conduct a multipronged analysis, including a review of marketing course syllabi, a survey of marketing educators, and follow-up qualitative interviews. Building on role theory and the community of inquiry model, they propose that GAI can assume three roles in marketing education: tutor, teammate, and tool. Each role influences teaching, social, and cognitive presence differently, shaping the learning experience and preparing workplace-ready marketing graduates. For instance, as a tutor, GAI can aid students in grasping theoretical concepts, while as a teammate, it can foster collaboration by supporting brainstorming and problem-solving activities. However, ethical considerations such as data privacy, plagiarism, dependency on AI, and fairness in assessment must be addressed to ensure its responsible adoption in marketing education. The authors provide concrete examples for GAI’s careful integration in marketing courses and discuss its implications for marketing educators, learners, and policy makers.

Read more from the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing

The post Journal of Public Policy & Marketing Special Issue | Generative AI: Promises and Perils appeared first on ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍű.

Picture this: A kids’ menu contains some healthy options, so a parent decides to order one for their child—perhaps grilled chicken bites with baby carrots. However, when it comes to the parent’s own order, they choose something less healthy, such as a cheeseburger with fries. They do this not because they necessarily want a burger themselves but out of concern that their child won’t like or eat their healthy meal, so the parent uses their own meal as a backup option. This common scenario reveals a complex dynamic in family dining that has significant implications for restaurants, policymakers, and public health.

A dives deep into the dynamics of these parent–child consumption choices through a series of studies, including interviews, a field experiment at a nursery school, and lab experiments. When parents choose healthy options for their kids in settings where sharing is possible, they often make unhealthy choices for themselves. This isn’t simply a matter of parents rewarding themselves; rather, it reflects a deeper tension between present-focused concerns (“will my child eat enough?”) and future-focused concerns (“is my child learning healthy eating habits?”).

“When parents choose healthy options for their kids in settings where sharing is possible, they often make unhealthy choices for themselves.”

The research identifies a psychological process in which parents focus so heavily on their child’s needs that they view their own meal as an extension of their child’s plate, often leveraging it as an alternative option for their child. This behavior not only impacts immediate consumption but could also have longer-term implications related to the wellness of the parents and, in turn, the wellness of the family the as a whole, as well as the modeling of unhealthy habits for children—despite parents’ good intentions.

What Can Restaurants and Policymakers Do?

For restaurants and policymakers, these findings suggest the need for a more holistic approach to family dining. Simply adding healthy options to kids’ menus isn’t enough; the entire dining ecosystem needs attention. Restaurants might consider menu language that promotes future-focused thinking about family meals, developing marketing communications that help set boundaries around food sharing, and working on aligning perceptions of healthy and tasty food. Meanwhile, policymakers should look beyond simply mandating healthy children’s menu options to consider guidelines that address both children’s and adults’ choices, especially in settings where families eat together. Educational campaigns could help families prioritize future well-being over immediate concerns, thus addressing the psychological dynamics revealed in this research. 

We had the privilege of speaking directly with two authors, Kelley Gullo Wight and Peggy Liu, to dive deeper into their fascinating study. Read on for their insights and behind-the-scenes stories:

Q: What initially inspired you to study the relationship between parents’ choices for their children and their subsequent choices for themselves? Can you share how the initial idea led to further studies and ultimately became the published article?

Dr. Wight: The initial inspiration came from personal observations during my first year of the PhD program. I got a cat and noticed an interesting pattern in my own behavior: I would go to the pet food store and spend a lot of time picking out the healthiest food. Afterward, I would go to the cupcake store next door and buy myself a cupcake. I started wondering, “What is happening? Why am I doing this?” This initial observation sparked broader research into how our initial choices for close others might affect our subsequent choices for ourselves.

Dr. Liu: At some point along the journey for this project, we expanded our study to consider a huge variety of relationships, such as siblings, competitive relationships, and friendships. However, what the JMR review team wanted us to do was, instead of covering every possible type of choice for others affecting choice for self, to think more about one specific type of context where it’s common to make choices for others and to figure out why there are influences between choices for others and choices for self in that context. By focusing on the parent–child relationship, we were able to develop a much stronger and more impactful paper.

Q: Were there any challenges in earlier studies, such as the field study conducted in the nursery school? How did you ultimately execute it?

Dr. Wight: The original version of the paper included a field study at a dog park. When the review team wanted us to focus specifically on parent–child relationships, we needed to find a replacement field study, which proved quite challenging during COVID.

Ultimately, we partnered with a nursery school. While we couldn’t directly observe parents and children eating because of COVID protocols, they allowed us to coordinate take-home meal orders for families. We are very grateful to the nursery school for their willingness to work with us. After the research was completed, we were able to give back to the community by conducting workshops about families with the parents, which was really great.

Q: Could greater literacy regarding sustainable and health-conscious food choices make a difference? What suggestions would you offer to parents based on your findings?

Dr. Wight: Focusing on sustainability and avoiding food waste could have a countereffect here: people might be more likely to pick a less healthy backup option to make sure all food is eaten. One thing that seems to be going on is that it may be valuable as a parent to be able to provide a wide variety of options that you have (as the parent) cleared as being healthy and to then let the child pick among them. This way, you’re still exerting control as the parent, and the child has a greater variety of healthy options to pick from, which might encourage healthier eating and help ensure that they pick the healthy options that they view as especially tasty.

Dr. Liu: I think most parents and adults know what’s healthy and unhealthy. Our research suggests that it is really important to emphasize that parents have a future focus (e.g., thinking about their child’s development of healthy habits for their future) instead of just a present focus (e.g., thinking about their child’s eating at that present moment). I think it’s also important to help people—both adults and children—understand that health and taste can be aligned. There’s some interesting research in nutrition that shows you have to try food many times before you can actually know if you like it.

Q: Based on your research, what adjustments would you suggest to restaurants to help promote healthier eating habits, particularly given that many kids’ meals today tend to be unhealthy? How could these insights be applied in public health initiatives?

Dr. Liu: While some companies and school cafeterias have tried to encourage providing children with healthier meals, we need to think about both short-term and long-term impacts. One key aspect would be to make health and taste feel more aligned for children. I think it’s important for children to develop actual enjoyment of these healthier options. Many parents know that it’s not good for their kids to eat unhealthy options frequently; to the extent that restaurants or companies could help children develop healthier habits, I think parents would be willing to eat [at these locations] more frequently.

Dr. Wight: The White House released a in 2023 for restaurants and businesses to offer more healthy children’s options, and many companies signed up. Our research insights suggest that we can’t only focus on the healthy options we offer on the kids’ menu or how we advertise healthy options for kids. We have to think about how parents pick their own meals as well because what really matters is what’s available on the table.

Q: Given societal pressure, such as the ideal of a “perfect parent,” or when in a social event with other parents, will parents’ behavior change?

Dr. Wight: I think, in some ways it’s an empirical question—something that could be interesting to study. With these kinds of parental peer pressure situations, I see where it could result in parents being more likely to try to encourage their children to eat healthy, which exacerbates the concern about whether they will eat enough to be full (such that parents choose unhealthy backup options). However, in other ways, parents may also choose healthy for themselves, given their peer influence. Something else could happen too. When you’re sitting with your parent friend and want to hang out, maybe you want to settle your child as soon as possible and give them something unhealthy that you know they’ll eat without any protest. This depends on all kinds of factors, which adds another layer of social influence to this kind of social dynamic.

Q: Beyond food, do you think similar behaviors might arise in other caregiving areas, such as educational choices (e.g., extracurriculars) or financial decisions for children? Are there common threads across different contexts?)

Dr. Liu: I think one broad concept that ties all these areas together is that parents make sacrifices. As parents, you may sacrifice your time, money, and consumption preferences across these domains. However, some of our findings in this particular JMR paper are fairly specific to food in the sense that if you think about something like the problems of sharing food and the immediate concerns of the child’s hunger, I’m not sure how those concepts translate as easily to education choices. There are parents who drive themselves ragged, trying to drive their children all over town to every extracurricular, when really what might have been better for the child and the whole family’s well-being is if the parent was less stressed. Therefore, while this is a bit removed from what this research project focused on empirically, it has a broader theme of sacrificing your own well-being for the child. This area of sacrifice is a really interesting one, I think, especially given recent calls by the for more work on the well-being of caregivers.

References

Kelley Gullo Wight, Peggy J. Liu, Lingrui Zhou, and Gavan J. Fitzsimons (2024), “,” Journal of Marketing Research, 61 (3), 451–71.

The White House (February 27, 2024), ““

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (August 28, 2024), “.”

Go to the Journal of Marketing Research

The post The Parent’s Plate Problem: How Good Intentions for Kids Lead to Poor Food Choices for Adults appeared first on ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍű.

The Expanding Role of CSR in Today’s Market

CSR has shifted beyond traditional profit motives to embrace broader social and ethical responsibilities. As businesses commit to addressing pressing social issues, disability inclusion remains an area where significant progress is still needed. People with disabilities (PWDs) are often excluded from marketing strategies and brand communications. This inclusion gap persists, even though this significant demographic consists of 1.6 billion people, constitutes 22% of the population, and collectively controls $18 trillion in buying power (Return on Disability 2024). Organizations have a valuable opportunity to expand their market reach and create positive social impact by integrating disability-inclusive CSR initiatives.

Aligning CSR with Consumer Expectations for Social Impact

Modern consumers prioritize authenticity and purpose in the brands they support, expecting companies to address social causes in a way that feels genuine. A report indicates that 87% of consumers favor brands with active social or environmental initiatives, while 76% avoid those that fall short in these areas (Cone Communications 2017). Embracing disability inclusion within CSR not only helps brands align with evolving consumer expectations but also fosters a strong sense of trust and connection. CSR efforts address inequities faced by marginalized groups, including PWDs. As organizations integrate disability inclusion into their CSR efforts, it is imperative to embrace the mantra of the disability community, “Nothing about us without us.” It emphasizes the importance of involving people with disabilities in decisions that impact them. By supporting disability-inclusive CSR, brands can build long-lasting loyalty and contribute to a fairer, more accessible marketplace.

Addressing the Representation Gap in Marketing

Despite increasing emphasis on diversity, disabled individuals remain vastly underrepresented in media and advertising. In 2021, a Nielsen study reported that only 1% of ads featured disabled individuals. Similarly, the 2018 Public Relations and Communications Association’s Census revealed merely 2% of communications professionals identified as having a disability (Khatwani 2018). This lack of representation perpetuates an empathy gap, where stereotypes are reinforced and authentic perspectives from the disabled community are missing. Including PWDs in advertising not only provides accurate representation but also gives voice to their experiences, enabling brands to develop campaigns that resonate with real consumer needs. Expanding representation allows brands to dismantle barriers, cultivate inclusivity, and bridge the empathy gap in media.

Applying the Inclusive CSR Design Framework

Lteif et al.’s (2025) framework introduces four dimensions for inclusive marketing: sensory, cognitive, behavioral, and social accessibility. Each addresses a unique accessibility aspect, offering brands a way to reach diverse audiences.

1. Sensory Accessibility: Sensory accessibility ensures that content reaches individuals with different sensory needs, like those with low vision. For example, Schick Intuition partnered with a popular blind social media influencer, Molly Burke, for its “Content For All” initiative. This effort focused on improving the accessibility of its social media content with the addition of detailed textual image descriptions and accessible hashtags while highlighting the importance of sensory accessibility in social media (DeSantis 2021).
2. Cognitive Accessibility: Cognitive accessibility accommodates a range of cognitive abilities. IBM’s “Neurodiversity @ IBM” program involves neurodiverse employees in creating content to ensure that it meets diverse needs (Grant Pickens 2021).
3. Behavioral Accessibility: Behavioral accessibility removes functional barriers to improve usability. Starbucks’s Signing Store, codesigned by Deaf employees, includes an open layout floor plan to support signing and integrates a two-way visual ordering system to set a new standard for retail accessibility (Blanchard and McAlpine 2018).
4. Social Accessibility: Social accessibility emphasizes inclusive portrayals in media. Google’s 2024 Super Bowl ad, “Javier in Frame,” featuring a low-vision user and created by a blind filmmaker, shows that disability representation can be impactful and socially affirming (Shaul 2024).

Aligning CSR with these four dimensions allows brands to develop campaigns that prioritize accessibility, ensuring that people with disabilities feel valued and empowered.

Financial and Social Benefits of Disability-Inclusive CSR

Investing in disability-inclusive CSR delivers significant financial and social benefits, establishing it as a strategic business decision beyond ethical commitment. The Public Relations and Communications Association’s (2023) Accessible Communications Guidelines underscores that accessible communications improve brand preference, purchase intent, and loyalty among disabled consumers and their networks, whereas inaccessible content risks alienating this demographic, damaging brand reputation.

Financially, the advantages are substantial. A recent study by Accenture and Disability:IN (2023) found that companies focused on disability inclusion report 1.6 times higher revenue, 2.6 times higher net income, and double the economic profit compared with those without disability initiatives. This data highlights that disability-inclusive CSR not only meets societal expectations but enhances profitability.

Further illustrating the business value of disability inclusion, a 2022 Forrester report estimates a $100 return for every dollar invested in accessibility (Bureau of Internet Accessibility 2024). Positive word of mouth within the disabled community and its allies further amplifies these gains, strengthening brand loyalty and expanding market reach. These benefits demonstrate why accessibility and inclusion are strategic priorities that also reinforce brand equity.

Policy Recommendations for Advancing Disability-Inclusive CSR

Public policy can play a vital role in promoting disability inclusion. Policy makers should consider the following:

1. Disability-Inclusive Hiring Incentives: Offering financial incentives to companies hiring, retaining, and supporting PWDs at all levels helps bridge representation gaps and fosters cultures where PWD perspectives enhance brand strategies and public initiatives.
2. Accessibility Certification Programs: Establishing a certification for disability-friendly brands based on Lteif et al.’s (2025) four accessibility dimensions would set a high standard, helping consumers identify accessible brands.
3. Mandated Accessible Marketing Tools: Requiring that marketing tools support assistive technologies ensures that disabled employees can fully participate in campaign creation, enhancing accessibility internally and externally.
4. Public–Private Partnerships for Inclusive Design Research: Collaborations between government, businesses, and nonprofits can drive innovation in inclusive design, accelerating the development of accessible products, tools, and experiences that meet the needs of PWDs.

Conclusion

Lteif et al.’s (2025) article provides brands with a powerful roadmap to foster disability-inclusive CSR, guiding them to consider sensory, cognitive, behavioral, and social dimensions in their marketing strategies. By embracing this framework, brands can move beyond surface-level inclusion efforts to build authentic connections with people with disabilities, fostering social equity and creating marketing that resonates meaningfully with diverse audiences.

Disability-inclusive CSR not only advances consumer trust and long-term loyalty but also unlocks untapped financial potential by expanding access to a market often overlooked. Through the integration of these inclusive design principles, brands can transform their approach, contributing to a marketplace where people of all abilities feel recognized, empowered, and valued. As more companies adopt this framework, they reinforce their corporate image as leaders in inclusivity, paving the way toward a future where marketing serves as a genuine bridge to belonging for all.

References

Accenture and Disability:IN (2023), “The Disability Inclusion Imperative,” (accessed March 20, 2025), .

Bureau of Internet Accessibility (2024), “What’s the ROI of Web Accessibility?” (January 3), .

Cone Communications (2017), “2017 Cone Communications CSR Study,” (accessed March 20, 2025), .

DeSantis, Rachel (2021), “Blind YouTube Star Molly Burke Is Fighting to Make Social Media More Inclusive: ‘Really No Excuse,’” People (June 29), .

Blanchard, Lauren and David McAlpine (2018), “Starbucks Opens First US-Based Sign Language Store,” New York Post (October 24), .

Grant Pickens, Carla (2021), “Neurodiversity Acceptance Month 2021: Awareness, Acceptance, & Advancement,” IBM Newsroom (April 6), .

Khatwani, Neha (2018), “Opinion: Why the PRCA is taking decisive action on diversity in PR,” Gorkana (February 19), .

Lteif, Lama, Helen van der Sluis, Lauren G. Block, Luca Cian, Vanessa M. Patrick, and Maura L. Scott (2025), “,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 44 (2), 214–31.

Nielsen (2021), “Visibility of Disability: Portrayals of Disability in Advertising,” (August), .

Public Relations and Communications Association (2023), “PRCA Accessible Communications Guidelines: 2023 Edition,” (accessed March 20), .

Return on Disability (2024), “Annual Report 2024,” (September 20), .

Shaul, Brandy (2024), “Google Pixel Celebrates Accessibility in Its Latest Super Bowl Ad,” Adweek (accessed March 20, 2025), .

Go to the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing

The post Bridging the Gap: Disability-Inclusive Corporate Social Responsibility as a Catalyst for Equitable Marketing Transformation appeared first on ÂÜÀòÉçčÙÍű.