Green marketing 735
additional cost burden and as an operational
issue, which concerned a relatively small num-
ber of ‘front-line’ industries such as oil, chem-
icals and cars.
During the 1980s and 1990s, a more proac-
tive style of corporate response emerged, and
the front line broadened to include a much
wider range of industries. Companies began to
recognize that environmental responsiveness is
something that customers, investors and other
stakeholders take an interest in, and which can
provide opportunities for innovation and com-
petitive advantage. As the environment
emerged as an issue of strategic importance,
and one with the potential to influence the
attitudes and behaviour of consumers, so mar-
keters increasingly began to take an interest.
However, much of the early response among
marketers was rather superficial, in seeking to
connect particular attributes of existing prod-
ucts to the environmental concern being
expressed by customers.
Marketers’ response to the green agenda is
sometimes proactive and sometimes reactive.
Reactive strategists tend to emphasize com-
pliance with legislation, and responding to any
specific customer pressure for improvements to
socio-environmental performance. The dangers
of a reactive approach were demonstrated by
the controversy stirred up by Shell’s decision to
dispose of the Brent Spar oil facility by dump-
ing it at sea. This apparently technical and
operational issue had been given UK govern-
ment approval, and Shell believed that it had
evidence to demonstrate that their strategy was
the optimal solution in environmental and
economic terms. Once environmental groups
and other North Sea governments learned
about the strategy, and decided to oppose it,
Shell found itself in a major public relations
battle and faced with a forecourt boycott by
European consumers. The company learned a
rather painful lesson about the need for stake-
holder dialogue and consultation, and the
ability of NGOs to focus consumer and media
attention. Proactive strategists tend to empha-
size communication with stakeholders, keeping
ahead of legislation and customer demands for
improvement, and participation in debates
about social and environmental issues.Competitive advantage and the environment
During the 1990s, the argument that greening
can act as a source of competitive advantage
emerged, from authors such as Elkington
(1994), Azzone and Bertele (1994), and Porter
and van der Linde (1995). Obvious examples
come from companies such as The Body Shop,
who compete on the basis of strong eco-
performance and by tapping into customer
demand for greener products. Porter and van
der Linde’s argument is that the search for
environmentally superior solutions leads to
innovation and the creation of more efficient
and effective technologies. Their logic is that
tough environmental legislation (often vigour-
ously opposed by companies) sets new chal-
lenges for companies, which prompts them to
be innovative and secure improvements in
competitive, as well as environmental, per-
formance. This is what Varadajan (1992) termed
‘enviropreneurial marketing’.
Others have argued that it is difficult in
practice to achieve and sustain competitive
advantage from good eco-performance (e.g.
Walley and Whitehead, 1994; Wong et al.,
1996). The issues have often proved complex
and costly to address; customers have often
proved difficult to convince; greener product
offerings have sometimes struggled to com-
pete on technical merits against conventional
products; and the media have often proved
more critical of those attempting to improve
their eco-performance and capitalize on it,
than of the most polluting and wasteful com-
panies. Despite this, it is clear that poor eco-
performance can put a company at a massive
competitive disadvantage. Exxon’s combined
bill for clean-up costs, fines and legal costs
estimated at over $3 billion in the immediate