Persisting for Progress: Advancing a Transformative Gender Perspective

“Although gender inequality is one of the most pressing challenges of our time, it also presents an unparalleled opportunity to transform societies.”

– UN Women (2025b, p. 5)

Roughly ten years after the publication of Hein et al.’s (2016) “Gender Justice and the Market: A Transformative Consumer Research Perspective” in the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, the United Nations (UN Women 2025b, p. 6) warns of “a world in crisis” in which gender disparities have deepened and progress has been limited. This chasm underscores the continued imperative for scholars to examine the relationship between marketing, policy, and gender equality. The intersections of gender and public policy conversations are wide-ranging and deeply nuanced. That is, gender matters across a wide range of contexts from policies related to medical and health care, child care, education, legal and constitutional rights, safety (online and offline), climate change, organizational policies, and labor to financial markets and fiscal policies; yet many policies neglect to meaningfully account for the nuances revealed through gendered perspectives. Policymakers urgently need to craft gender-responsive policies that help foster quality of life, equity, and access, especially with regard to the marketplace. Hein et al.’s article offers a framework—the transformative gender justice framework (TGJF)—that supports deeper analysis for researchers and policymakers grappling with gender injustice.

The TGJF brings together three philosophical lenses—distributive justice, recognition justice, and the capabilities approach—to assess gender-related marketing communications, market, and consumption activities. It is a multiparadigmatic analysis that reveals “the interactions of structural, agentic, and sociocultural forces that underlie gender injustices” (Hein et al. 2016, p. 223) and helps policymakers and practitioners assess the impact of interventions. The TGJF emerged from the first gender track at the Transformative Consumer Research (TCR) dialogical conference in 2015, at a time of possibility for a renaissance of gender research in marketing, emboldened by the UN’s pronouncement of gender equality as a Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) (Zayer et al. 2020).

The TCR team working on the TGJF has demonstrated its use in addressing issues around intersectionality (Steinfield et al. 2019b), power (Steinfield et al. 2019c), its adoption within and across marketing and consumer behavior scholarship (Steinfield et al. 2019a; Zayer et al. 2017), how it can advance the SDGs (Zayer et al. 2020), and potential policy implications. For example, Steinfield et al. (2019a) employed a critical cultural consumer perspective that interrogated power, policies, and the implications for consumers’ embodied realities, while Zayer et al. (2020) considered the impact of the UN’s SDGs towards a potential renaissance for gender equality that engaged organizations in policy and change actions. These examples, as with other research applying a feminist lens, move scholarship beyond traditional marketing approaches to gender (e.g., as a variable, for market segmentation) toward examinations of the historical, structural, and cultural reproductions of gender, particularly considering power. The TGJF has been cited in scholarship examining broad areas such as entrepreneurship, advertising, services, marketing, and feminism to contexts such as pornography, sexual well-being, masculinities, and marginalized consumers, as well as to highlight how gender issues can be studied from a recursive, multilevel (micro, meso, macro) perspective; yet, much work remains, particularly in taking its feminist lens forward in marketing-and-policy-related scholarship and practice.

However, since penning this body of work, the 2024 SDG Gender Index (Equal Measures 2030, 2024) reported that 40% of countries around the world had made no progress or regressed on gender equality goals between 2019 and 2022, a trajectory that places gender equality out of reach as a 21^st-century achievement. More recently, the U.S. has witnessed the issuance of Executive Orders and the passage of acts that the National Women’s Law Center (Gill 2025) has argued could disenfranchise millions based on gender. Under these conditions, the TGJF offers a useful tool, capturing the “complex, systemic, glocalized, institutionalized, and embodied nature of gender injustices” (Hein et al. 2016, p. 223).

This curation was motivated by an effort to trace gender-focused scholarship in the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing (JPPM) and the way scholars have recognized or grappled with gender (in)justices and their implications for marketing, public policy, and consumer well-being. We do so to guide and encourage additional research that supports gender justice, the need for which is amplified in the current moment.

Situating Gender

Gender, we acknowledge, is a complex construct, embedded within people’s varied social positions and lived experiences and influenced by macro forces that shape identities and roles. Viewing gender as different from, yet at times tied to, biological sex, per Fischer and Arnold (1994), allows scholars to engage in more nuanced examinations of the cultural (re)production of gender (Butler 2002; McCall 1992; West and Zimmerman 1987; Zayer et al. 2017), and avoids reductive framings of gender (Steinfield, Hutton, and Cheded 2024).

Gender and JPPM

A keyword search of gender and gender-related topics in JPPM (excluding book reviews and articles where gender was tangential to the research) resulted in 59 publications, 12 of which explicitly used the word “gender” and 47 of which used gender-related terms. A review of these articles shows that early studies in the journal, as in other marketing and consumer research journals, treated gender as interchangeable with sex, primarily as a demographic variable used to segment consumers and behaviors. However, the positioning soon shifted toward social issues, including gender misrecognitions in advertising (e.g., Wyckham 1987), gender consumption affected by policies (Hill and Macan 1996), and the effects of marketing practices, with a notable focus on problematic products and practices (i.e., alcohol and tobacco). These themes remain central to JPPM’s aims and were early examples of work that aligns with the TGJF.

In the late 1990s, gender research in JPPM increasingly highlighted the ways gender inequities occurred across a range of places and practices, from the experience of young men in juvenile reform programs (Ozanne, Hill, and Wright 1998) to healthcare encounters of poorer women (Lee, Ozanne, and Hill 1999). Despite a seeming lull in the early 2000s, the work on gender inequities was revived in the 2010s through the TCR community. Scholars sought solutions around marketing practices for at-risk consumers (Pechmann et al. 2011), brought frameworks to promote a more equitable global marketplace (Scott et al. 2011), and advanced intersectional analyses (Gopaldas 2013), allowing important nuances of consumers’ experiences to be made visible (Mirabito et al. 2016; Thomas 2013), including sexualities (Hildebrand et al. 2013; Oakenfull 2013). Scholars also adopted different research methods and frameworks, such as Hill et al.’s (2015) use of participatory methods to capture gender experiences of inequities in prisons and Kachen et al.’s (2025) six dimensions of gender well-being (health, agency, empowerment, safety, access, and belonging), applied through n-gram analysis and topic modeling to understand how the dimensions emerge in popular culture. Supported by the TGJF and its goal of transforming marketplaces, studies continued to highlight the importance of gender in pursuit of inclusive marketing practices (DeBerry-Spence et al. 2023). They expanded beyond the Global North to the Global South, emphasizing consumer agency despite the gender and intersectional inequities faced and highlighting potential interventions to address gender inequities (e.g., El Jurdi, Baktir, and Price 2025; Mitra et al. 2022; Steinfield et al. 2021; Venugopal and Viswanathan 2021). In recent years, the core focal areas of gender in JPPM—policy, marketing practices, consumer’s experiences and agency—continue, advancing critical concerns such as increased vulnerabilities, inequities, and marketplace considerations (Fitzgerald et al. 2023; Fox and Hoy 2019; Montecchi et al. 2024; Tanner and Tanner 2020).

Despite the varied perspectives afforded by feminisms on gender (Hearn and Hein 2015), JPPM has yet to explore the full potential of feminist theories. While researchers study gender through multiple theoretical lenses, feminist theories foreground power dynamics and the dominant ideologies and systems that support them. Applied to marketing and public policy scholarship and practice, they make visible the often embedded dynamics that shape markets, institutions, and lived experiences. Feminist theories have been used, for example, to reintroduce missing voices into knowledge production and historical accounts, deconstruct advertising and marketing texts to reveal gendered ideologies underpinning them, examine embodied and lived experiences in the marketplace, and understand identity formations (Maclaran, Stevens, and Kravets 2022)—particularly illuminating vulnerabilities and power asymmetries. They also draw attention to domains traditionally overlooked within marketing (Peñaloza et al. 2023), such as invisible or undervalued consumer practices and forms of labor, and explicitly link micro-level experiences to macro-level structures (Martin 2004).

In JPPM, Dobscha and Ozanne (2001) offer an early application of feminism, using ecofeminism to study women’s relationships with nature and consumer resistance. Feminism, notably, can be used to study inequities beyond gender, for example, to surface dynamics that inform social relations and subjectivities across areas of pressing concern such as care, health and medicine, the environment, representation, sociopolitical dynamics of technology, and other areas where systems of power are central. We find in JPPM, however, few instances of feminist theory applied beyond gender, such as in the work of Saatcioglu and Ozanne (2013), who examine power and control over social space. A JPPM special issue on “Reclaiming Marketplace Inclusion as a Marketing Imperative” offers new perspectives (e.g., Zayer et al.’s [2026] work on technology-facilitated gender-based violence and Daskalopoulou and Gurrieri’s [2026] work on brand misogyny). Nonetheless, feminist approaches remain overall rare in JPPM, with only a few articles using feminist theories to draw out systemic inequities produced by power relations and to advocate for appropriate policies to account for and address (intersectional) injustices (see Hein et al. 2016; Steinfield et al. 2021). We thus call for future research to more fully mobilize feminist theories to draw power to the fore, and to produce critical and transformative research on how inequities are structured, lived, and contested across intersecting areas of marketing and public policy.

Gender and Marketing

In the previous section we outlined gender and feminist research within JPPM. However, critical research has been and is being done in other spaces. This includes special issues of the Journal of Marketing Management (Arsel, Eräranta, and Moisander 2015; Dobscha and Ostberg 2021), Journal of Macromarketing (Gurrieri, Previte, and Prothero 2020), Journal of the Association for Consumer Research (Coleman, Fischer, and Zayer 2021), and Journal of Consumer Affairs (Steinfield, Hutton, and Cheded 2024); key journal articles that engage in gender research in marketing (Bettany et al. 2010; Gurrieri and Drenten 2026; Peñaloza et al. 2023); and edited handbooks providing important research on the convergence of marketing and gender (Costa 1994; Daskalopoulou, Pirani, and Ostberg 2024; Dobscha 2019; Maclaran, Stevens, and Kravets 2022; Otnes and Zayer 2012).

Call for Future Research

Building on the critical insights emerging from recent gender scholarship in marketing, the TGJF offers a pathway to extend these conversations toward intervention and impact. While recognizing the range of issues that intersect with gender, we offer two critical gender-focused areas for research in this cultural moment. First is how the ideological politicization of gender has far-reaching implications for marketing, markets, and every facet of daily life. As emphasized in our original work, access, agency, representation and recognition are key to a flourishing society rooted in gender justice. To that end, future research could examine limitations on access to goods and services in gendered spaces, such as the reproductive and health markets. It could expand a decolonial and Global South view of market practices, political ideologies and how they resonate with debates in the Global North (Ourahmoune and El Jurdi 2024, 2025). It could further develop gender justice-based perspectives for representation and brand activism and engage more deeply with the study of healthy masculinities (United Nations Development Programme 2024; Zayer, McGrath, and González 2020). For example, globally only 5% of research and development funds are targeted at examining issues related to women’s health (Nature Reviews Bioengineering 2024); yet addressing the investment gap in women’s health would boost the global economy an estimated $1 trillion annually by 2040 (World Economic Forum 2024). Additionally, stigmatized care such as men’s mental health is often overlooked (https://us.movember.com/about/mental-health). Thus, a nuanced understanding of funding structures, regulatory standards, and political constraints that shape health policy and its resulting harms and disparities are vital to a healthy society for all.

A second urgent area for study is to map the intersectional inequities in digital and algorithmic spaces and move towards a gender transformative agenda. Profound technological change introduces a host of potential harms to all people, but particularly to women and marginalized individuals who can be subject to the same biases that exist in offline spaces but are now amplified through digital means (see Zayer et al. 2026). The rise of technologically facilitated online gender-based violence through imaged-based sexual abuse, sextortion, cyberstalking, and harassment, among other harms, poses significant threats (UNFPA 2025). Yet, current legislation across the globe is fragmented and uneven, with significant gaps, including neglect of the full range of violence; globally more than half of women are unprotected by legislation (UN Women 2025a). For example, UN Women (2025a) warns of a “one-size-fits-all” approach to legislation to address technology-facilitated violence, emphasizing instead the need for an intersectional lens that is time-resistant, coordinated, and empowers the voices of those most affected. Future research should carefully examine the role of markets and marketing as it relates to developing comprehensive, data-driven, and human-centered public policies that keep pace with rapid sociocultural and technological change.

The enduring value of the TGJF lies in its explicitly dialogical and recursive orientation (Morin 1992). “Dialogical” means the framework emphasizes that gender justice cannot be prescribed unilaterally by academics, policymakers, or firms; it must emerge through ongoing dialogue among diverse stakeholders, including consumers, communities, organizations, and regulators. This insistence on dialogue foregrounds the importance of plural knowledges, lived experiences, and intersectional perspectives in shaping what justice means in different market contexts. By “recursive,” the TGJF underscores that achieving justice is a process of reflection, critique, and redesign. Practices and policies must be continuously reassessed against the pillars of distributive justice, capabilities, and recognition as market structures, technologies, and gender identities evolve.

This dialogical and recursive (Morin 1992) orientation emphasizes that the TGJF is not a static evaluative tool but a dynamic analytical lens. It enables scholars to investigate how iterative stakeholder engagement reshapes marketplace policies, how justice assessments shift across contexts, and how cycles of recognition and misrecognition unfold. In this way, TGJF supports a transformative research agenda that is both critical and praxis oriented. In sum, as gender equity hangs in the balance globally, applying feminist theories and frameworks such as the TGJF can open crucial future avenues for research, policy, and practice.

References

Arsel, Zeynep, Kirsi Eräranta, and Johanna Moisander (2015), “Introduction: Theorising Gender and Gendering Theory in Marketing and Consumer Research,” Journal of Marketing Management, 31 (15–16), 1553–58.

Butler, Judith (2002), Gender Trouble. Routledge.

Bettany, Shona M., Susan Dobscha, Lisa O’Malley, and Andrea Prothero (2010), “Moving Beyond Binary Opposition: Exploring the Tapestry of Tender in Consumer Research and Marketing,” Marketing Theory, 10 (1), 3–28.

Coleman, Catherine, Eileen Fischer, and Linda Tuncay Zayer (2021), “A Research Agenda for (Gender) Troubled Times: Striving for a Better Tomorrow,” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 6 (2), 205–10.

Costa, Janeen Arnold (Ed.) (1994), Gender Issues and Consumer Behavior. Sage.

Daskalopoulou, Athanasia, Daniela Pirani, and Jacob Ostberg (2024), Sexuality in Marketing and Consumption: Queer Theory, Feminist Research, and Intersectionality. Taylor & Francis.

DeBerry-Spence, Benét, Lez E. Trujillo-Torres, Rumela Sengupta, Kohei Matsumoto, and Jia Chen (2023), “Marketing’s Role in Promoting the Common Good: A Systematic Examination and an Agenda for Future Inquiry,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 42 (2), 95–114.

Dobscha, Susan and Jacob Ostberg (2021), “Introduction to the Special Issue on Gender Impacts: Consumption, Markets, Marketing, and Marketing Organisations,” Journal of Marketing Management, 37 (3–4), 181–87.

Dobscha, Susan, ed. (2019), Handbook of Research on Gender and Marketing, Edward Elgar Publishing.

Dobscha, Susan and Julie L. Ozanne (2001), “An Ecofeminist Analysis of Environmentally Sensitive Women Using Qualitative Methodology: The Emancipatory Potential of an Ecological Life,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 20 (2), 201–14.

El Jurdi, Hounaida A., Zeynep Baktir, and Linda L. Price (2025), “Resourcing Hope: Refugee Agentive Consumption Acts in Protracted Displacement,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 44 (1), 43–60.

Equal Measures 2030 (2024), “Findings from the 2024 Equal Measures Index: A Gender Equal Future in Crisis?” https://equalmeasures2030.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/EM2030_2024_SDG_Gender_Index_EN_digital.pdf

Fischer, Eileen and Stephen J. Arnold (1994), “Sex, Gender Identity, Gender Role Attitudes, and Consumer Behavior,” Psychology & Marketing, 11 (2), 163–82.

Fitzgerald, M. Paula, Jeff Langenderfer, Roberta Renzelli-Cain, and Elizabeth A. Critch (2023), “Marketing and Public Policy Implications of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 42 (4), 303–25.

Fox, Alexa K. and Mariea Grubbs Hoy (2019), “Smart Devices, Smart Decisions? Implications of Parents’ Sharenting for Children’s Online Privacy: An Investigation of Mothers,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 38 (4), 414–32.

Gill, Alison (2025), “How the SAVE Act Could Disenfranchise Millions of Married Women and Trans Voters,” National Women’s Law Center (March 27), https://nwlc.org/how-the-save-act-could-disenfranchise-millions-of-married-women-and-trans-voters/.

Gopaldas, Ahir (2013), “Intersectionality 101,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 32 (Special Issue), 90–94.

Gurrieri, Lauren and Jenna Drenten (2026), “Gender and the Marketplace: A Feminist Dialogical Review,” Journal of Marketing Management, 42 (3–4), 262–302.

Gurrieri, Lauren, Josephine Previte, and Andrea Prothero (2020), “Hidden in Plain Sight: Building Visibility for Critical Gender Perspectives Exploring Markets, Marketing and Society,” Journal of Macromarketing, 40 (4), 437–44.

Hearn, Jeff and Wendy Hein (2015), “Reframing Gender and Feminist Knowledge Construction in Marketing and Consumer Research: Missing Feminisms and the Case of Men and Masculinities,” Journal of Marketing Management, 31 (15–16), 1626–51.

Hein, Wendy, Laurel Steinfield, Nacima Ourahmoune, Catherine Coleman, Linda Tuncay Zayer, and Jon Littlefield (2016), “Gender Justice and the Market: A Transformative Consumer Research Perspective,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 35 (2), 223–36.

Hildebrand, Diogo, Yoshiko DeMotta, Sankar Sen, and Kritika Kongsompong (2013), “In-Group and Out-Group Influences on the Consumption Behavior of Minority Groups: The Case of Gay Men,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 32 (Special Issue), 70–78.

Hill, Ronald Paul and Sandi Macan (1996), “Consumer Survival on Welfare with an Emphasis on Medicaid and the Food Stamp Program,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 15 (1), 118–27.

Hill, Ronald Paul, Justine M. Rapp, Michael L. Capella, and Gramercy Gentlemen (2015), “Consumption Restriction in a Total Control Institution: Participatory Action Research in a Maximum Security Prison,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 34 (2), 156–72.

Kachen, Sheen, Paula C. Peter, Kellilynn M. Frias, Lorena Carcía Ramón, Ranny Liu, and Michelle van Solt (2025), “Lyrics of Gender Well-Being: A Definition and Exploration of Well-Being Dimensions That Define Gendered Experiences,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing (published online December 18), https://doi.org/10.1177/0743915625141234.

Lee, Renée Gravois, Julie L. Ozanne, and Ronald Paul Hill (1999), “Improving Service Encounters Through Resource Sensitivity: The Case of Health Care Delivery in an Appalachian Community,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 18 (2), 230–48.

Maclaran, Pauline, Lorna Stevens, and Olga Kravets, eds. (2022), The Routledge Companion to Marketing and Feminism. Routledge.

Martin, Patricia Yancey (2004), “Gender as Social Institution,” Social Forces, 82 (4), 1249–73.

McCall, Leslie (1992), “Does Gender Fit? Bordieu, Feminism, and Conceptions of Social Order,” Theory and Society, 21 (6), 837–67.

Mirabito, Ann M., Cele C. Otnes, Elizabeth Crosby, David B. Wooten, Jane E. Machin, Chris Pullig, Natalie Ross Adkins, Susan Dunnett, Kathy Hamilton, Kevin D. Thomas, Marie A. Yeh, Cassandra Davis, Johanna F. Gollnhofer, Aditi Grover, Jess Matias, Natalie A. Mitchell, Edna G. Ndichu, Nada Sayarh, and Sunaina Velagaleti (2016), “The Stigma Turbine: A Theoretical Framework for Conceptualizing and Contextualizing Marketplace Stigma,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 35 (2), 170–84.

Mitra, Nilanjana, Ronald Paul Hill, Himadri Roy Chaudhuri, and Anindita Chaudhuri (2022), “Identity Management as a Coping Strategy for Stigmatization: The Case of Indian Sex Workers in a Libidinal Market,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 41 (2), 124–40.

Montecchi, Matteo, Maria Rita Micheli, Mario Campana, and Hope Jensen Schau (2024), “From Crisis to Advocacy: Tracing the Emergence and Evolution of the LGBTQIA+ Consumer Market,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 43 (1), 10–30.

Morin, Edgar (1992), Method: Towards a Study of Humankind Volume 1: The Nature of Nature, Roland Belanger, trans. Peter Lang.

Nature Reviews Bioengineering (2024), “Funding Research on Women’s Health,” Nature Reviews Bioengineering, 2, 797–798, https://doi.org/10.1038/s44222-024-00253-7.

Oakenfull, Gillian W. (2013), “What Matters: Factors Influencing Gay Consumers’ Evaluations of ‘Gay-Friendly’ Corporate Activities,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 32 (Special Issue), 79–89.

Otnes, Cele C. and Linda Tuncay Zayer, eds. (2012), Gender, Culture, and Consumer Behavior, Routledge.

Ourahmoune, Nacima and Hounaida El Jurdi (2024), “The March for Gender Equality of Algerian Women: The Struggle for Spatial and Historical Recognition,” Gender, Work & Organization, 31 (3), 1012–30.

Ourahmoune, Nacima and Hounaida A. El Jurdi (2025), “Ambiguous Branding and the Politics of Inclusion: Segregative and Integrative Inclusion in Social Movements,” Marketing Theory, 14705931251378544.

Ozanne, Julie L., Ronald Paul Hill, and Newell D. Wright (1998), “Juvenile Delinquents’ Use of Consumption as Cultural Resistance: Implications for Juvenile Reform Programs and Public Policy,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 17 (2), 185–96.

Pechmann, Cornelia (Connie), Elizabeth S. Moore, Alan R. Andreasen, Paul M. Connell, Dan Freeman, Meryl P. Gardner, Deborah Heisley, R. Craig Lefebvre, Dante M. Pirouz, and Robin L. Soster (2011), “Navigating the Central Tensions in Research on At-Risk Consumers: Challenges and Opportunities,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30 (1), 23–30.

Peñaloza, Lisa, Andrea Prothero, Pierre McDonagh, and Kate Pounders (2023), “The Past and Future of Gender Research in Marketing: Paradigms, Stances, and Value-Based Commitments,” Journal of Marketing, 87 (6), 847–68.

Saatcioglu, Bige and Julie L. Ozanne (2013), “A Critical Spatial Approach to Marketplace Exclusion and Inclusion,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 32 (Special Issue), 32–37.

Scott, Linda, Jerome D. Williams, Stacey Menzel Baker, Jan Brace-Govan, Hilary Downey, Anne-Marie Hakstian, Geraldine Rosa Henderson, Peggy Sue Loroz, and Dave Webb (2011), “Beyond Poverty: Social Justice in a Global Marketplace,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30 (1), 39–46.

Steinfield, Laurel, Catherine Coleman, Linda Tuncay Zayer, Nacima Ourahmoune, and Wendy Hein (2019a), “Power Logics of Consumers’ Gendered (In)justices: Reading Reproductive Health Interventions Through the Transformative Gender Justice Framework,” Consumption Markets & Culture, 22 (4), 406–29.

Steinfield, Laurel, Martina Hutton, and Mohammed Cheded (2024), “Troubling Genders and Consumer Well-Being: Going Across, Between and Beyond the Binaries to Gender/sex/ual and Intersectional Diversity,” Journal of Consumer Affairs, 58 (1), 3–53.

Steinfield, Laurel, Jon Littlefield, Wendy Hein, Catherine A. Coleman, and Linda Tuncay Zayer (2019b), “The TCR Perspective of Gender: Moving from Critical Theory to an Activism-Praxis Orientation,” in Handbook of Research on Gender and Marketing, Susan Dobscha, ed. Edward Elgar, 186–210.

Steinfield, Laurel, Minita Sanghvi, Linda Tuncay Zayer, Catherine A. Coleman, Nacima Ourahmoune, Robert L. Harrison, Wendy Hein, and Jan Brace-Govan (2019c), “Transformative Intersectionality: Moving Business Towards a Critical Praxis,” Journal of Business Research, 100, 366–75.

Steinfield, Laurel, Srinivas Venugopal, Samuelson Appau, Andres Barrios, Charlene Dadzie, Roland Gau, Diane Holt, Mai Nguyen Thi Tuyet, and Clifford Shultz (2021), “Across Time, Across Space and Intersecting in Complex Ways: A Framework for Assessing Impacts of Environmental Disruptions on Nature-Dependent Prosumers,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 40 (2), 262–84.

Tanner, John F. and Emily C. Tanner (2020), “Fairy Tales Don’t Come True: The Impact of Aspirational Distance on Teen Pregnancy Prevention Messages,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 39 (1), 15–30.

Thomas, Kevin D. (2013), “Endlessly Creating Myself: Examining Marketplace Inclusion Through the Lived Experience of Black and White Male Millennials,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 32 (Special Issue), 95–105.

United Nations Development Programme (2024), “Masculinities and Engaging Men for Gender Equality,” (November 6), https://www.undp.org/evaluation/publications/masculinities-and-engaging-men-gender-equality.

United Nations Population Fund (2025), “Preventing Technology-Facilitated Gender Based Violence,” https://www.unfpa.org/TFGBV.

UN Women (2025a), “Model Frameworks for Legislation on Technology-Facilitated Violence Against Women and Girls,” https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2025/11/brief-model-framework-for-legislation-on-technology-facilitated-violence-against-women-and-girls.

UN Women (2025b), “Women’s Rights in Review 30 Years After Beijing,” https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2025/03/womens-rights-in-review-30-years-after-beijing.

Venugopal, Srinivas and Madhubalan Viswanathan (2021), “Negotiated Agency in the Face of Consumption Constraints: A Study of Women Entrepreneurs in Subsistence Contexts,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 40 (3), 336–53.

West, Candace and Don H. Zimmerman (1987), “Doing Gender,” Gender and Society, 1 (2), 125–51.

World Economic Forum (2024), “Closing the Women’s Health Gap: A $1 Trillion Opportunity to Improve Lives and Economies,” https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Closing_the_Women%E2%80%99s_Health_Gap_2024.pdf.

Wyckham, Robert G. (1987), “Self-Regulation of Sex-Role Stereotyping in Advertising: The Canadian Experience,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 6 (1), 76–92.

Zayer, Linda Tuncay, Catherine Coleman, Wendy Hein, Jon Littlefield, and Laurel Steinfield (2017), “Gender and the Self: Traversing Feminisms, Masculinities, and Intersectionality Towards Transformative Perspectives,” in The Routledge Companion to Consumer Behavior, M.R. Solomon and T.M. Lowrey, eds. Routledge, 147–62.

Zayer, Linda Tuncay, Wendy Hein, Jan Brace-Govan, Catherine A. Coleman, Robert L. Harrison, Nacima Ourahmoune, Minita Sanghvi, and Laurel Steinfield (2020), “The Renaissance of Gender Equality Research and Sustainable Development in the Academic Context of Marketing: Championing Paths Forward,” in Struggles and Successes in the Pursuit of Sustainable Development, T.K. Tan, M. Gudic, and P. Flynn, eds. Routledge, 139–50.

Zayer, Linda Tuncay, Mary Ann McGrath, and Pilar Castro González (2020), “Men and Masculinities in a Changing World: Delegitimizing Gender Ideals in Advertising,” European Journal of Marketing, 54 (1), 238–60.

Zayer, Linda Tuncay, Robert Alfonso Arias, Akon E. Ekpo, Katherine Sredl, and Jenna Drenten (2026), “A Transformative Agenda for Digital Inclusion: Unpacking the Institutional Dynamics of Algorithmic Systems,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 45 (3), 310–14.

Learn more about the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing