A stakeholder perspective of the reciprocal value proposition
ABSTRACT
The aim of article is to examine exploration and functioning of reciprocal value proposition
within service-dominant logic as well as confirm targeted stakeholder to participate in
developing value propositions as reciprocal promises of value. Overall, the idea of viewing
value proposition as a reciprocal interaction between the firm and its stakeholders has not
been studied in detail but we found it has great potential in growing the firm. According to our
research findings, applying reciprocal value proposition can initiate and lead integrative value
activities between initiators and participants stakeholders of the firm, and helps the firm to
sustain competitive advantage.
Reciprocal value proposition, service-dominant logic, stakeholder
INTRODUCTION
The debate that challenges the goods dominant (G-D) logic of marketing, with Vargo &
Lusch (2004) appealing to marketing theorists to consider a service dominant (S-D) logic for
value creation. S-D logic is essentially a value co-creation model that views all actors as
resource integrators and ties together in service shared systems of exchange (Vargo, 2011).
Webster (2002) indicated that value proposition should be one of the most important
organizing principles for the firm. The participators in the market are seen as a value system.
It promotes and integrates who are connected to each other through value propositions and
value-creating processes (Maglio and Spohrer, 2008). From this point, the market is not only a
meeting place but involves communicative interaction (Ballantyne et al., 2011; Varey, 2008)
The development of S-D logic at this stage has vague definitional problems associated
with many of the terms that still exist. Frow & Payne (2011) indicated that S-D logic literature
does not explore in detail about the adoption and use of value proposition in practice. They
appeal to explore the value proposition concept and the process involved in its development.
Furthermore, to establish from their proposed reformulation, Ballantyne et al. (2011) further
their research to examine how reciprocal value propositions are developed in practice.
The S-D logic emphasizes the potential for co-creation and sharing of resources between
suppliers, customers, and other market players (Ballantyne & Varey, 2006). Value is derived
1
from the service experience of the particular players in interaction. The firm must be
interpreted as a complicated mechanism that links customer value and the value of the firm
for all of its stakeholders (Lusch and Webster, 2011). Regarding the value proposition of the
firm, it is a fundamental premise that stakeholder’s definition of value changes continuously.
Marketing must be a studying process for both the supplier network organization and the
customer (Lusch, Vargo and Tanniru, 2010). The marketing and negotiating landscape
changes with S-D logic where unidirectional communication transfer to reciprocal
communication (Lusch & Vargo, 2006).
The purpose of the study is to explore co-creation in S-D logic through a firm uses
reciprocal value proposition with stakeholders to provide a unique perspective of the
phenomenon. Specially, the research questions this study aims to answer are: (a) How does a
firm initiate or participate in reciprocal value proposition with the stakeholder? (b) How does
reciprocal value proposition influence the firm and stakeholders’ interaction to co-creation?
LITERACTURE REVIEW
Co-creation value and stakeholder research
Many related studies or literature involving co-creation discuss this shifting paradigm
within marketing from G-D logic to S-D logic (Badot & Cova, 2008; Etgar, 2007; Vargo &
Lusch, 2004). It helps to understand the co-creation concept because S-D logic is important as
it has expanded the contention of co-creation.
S-D logic is shifting the emphasis from firm to customer and supplier in co-creating
value. However, we also consider the broader context of firm’s stakeholders (Frow & Payne,
2011). We believe value proposition can play an important role in helping to find opportunity
for value co-creation and provide a potential mechanism for creating stability within the
stakeholders’ network.
In the new S-D paradigm of innovation, stakeholders become the real co-innovators in an
interaction process characterized by continuous dialogue among stakeholders concerning the
development, exchange, and integration of resources, and co-creation of value (Mele, Tiziana
& Colurcio, 2010). Even though companies increasingly recognize the relevance of
stakeholders’ value-based approach through their work, they find very difficult to clearly
identify their key stakeholders on what they want and need. Consequently, the firm’s value
propositions will easily incur huge costs, and it will affect value creation mechanismsas well
as the value creation dynamics on the different stakeholders (Lerro, 2011).
2
However, there is a stress on stakeholder collaboration and a shift from transactional to
sustained relational exchanges in relationship marketing literature. The relationship-based
approach to marketing includes creating exchanges and interactions of mutually beneficial
value (Christopher et al., 2002). Scholars suggest that identifying a right stakeholder group is
a first step to building up relationships (Freeman, 1984; Gummesson, 2002).
Reciprocal value proposition
This study investigates the implications of reciprocal value proposition for the firm and
stakeholders’ co-creation. From a different perspective, Flint & Mentzer (2006) describe value
propositions as more often than not co-produced, rather than pre-packed in advance by
suppliers. Value propositions are developed by network partners through knowledge sharing
manifested as value-in-use by customers under the terms of S-D logic. Vargo & Lusch (2004)
indicated value propositions as a fundamental premise of S-D logic. Reciprocity is a
facilitator of such role flexibility in who chooses to initiate or complete an offer, or work
together with a counterpart in developing a value proposition (Truong, Simmons & Palmer,
2012)
Reciprocal value propositions are based on the notion of complementary objectives
among participants in a value creating process (Glaser, 2006). The features of reciprocal value
proposition not only reside in its core competencies and distinctive resources, but also its
capability to match the resources of other stakeholders. We also indicated that reciprocal value
proposition display opportunities for firm engagement with suppliers, customers, and other
beneficiaries, as part of a platform for communicative interaction (Ballantyne et al., 2011).
O’Cass & Ngo (2011) indicated the importance of the product-based and relational
benefits which are important to value propositions. These scholars emphasize that delivery of
superior performance in its value offering mix of performance value, relationship building
value, and co-creation value.
Ballantyne et al. (2011) develop a platform for communication interaction involving
three connected stages: (1) value proposition: evaluate specific interactive episodes in the
development of reciprocal value propositions between key actors; (2) resource integration:
evaluate specific integrative network linkages between actors; and (3) value-in use: evaluate
the value of goods and other resources integrated by a counterpart into their own value
creating processes.
3
Opportunities for communication occur where the parties in market are open to
interacting and learning (Jaworski & Kohli, 2006). From pre-sale to post-sale within the
supplier-customer relationship, communications and learning between the parties extends
over time (Varey, 2008). Such a platform provides structure for linking the development of
reciprocal value propositions to the co-creation and improvement of reciprocal value over
time. As a learning perceptive based on interaction, where communication operates as an
interactive process of learning based on trust and the ability to listen as well as contribute
(Ballantyne & Varey, 2006).
In summary, we position reciprocal value propositions as a communication practice that
brings exchange activities, relationship development, and knowledge renewal closer together
(Ballantyne & Varey, 2006). These activities are integrated within an augmented
communicative interaction, and the implications for firm value strategic are discussed.
Meanwhile, it’s the foundation of reciprocal value propositions which will help the
collaboration evolve and become an ultimate success.
METHOD
The purpose of the study is to explore how the firm uses value on corporate growth
strategy as well as confirm targeted stakeholder to participate in developing value
propositions as reciprocal promises of value. The study adopted a qualitative case study
approach because the event under investigation is context-dependent and complex (Halinen &
To¨rnroos, 2005). The analysis for case study of process repeated with context to produce high
close connection, and therefore the result is often novel, empirically valid, and testable
(Eisenhardt, 1989). We adopted multiple case researches, , and these researches are often
persuasive and stable in whole research. It retains the whole event and meaningful
characteristic (Yin, 2003; Herriot & Firestine, 1983).
Case selection
Purposive sampling is used in the selection of the qualitative study. We selected the cases
that meet the reason of an extreme or unique case. The study interviews two companies
including Yuan Soap and Lavender Cottage. Yuan Soap, a soap making and marketing
company, was established in Wanli, Taiwan in 2005. Founded by Jiang Rong-Yuan with three
employees, Yuan Soap now expands to a company with more than 100 employees. Its
ingredient of the soap is made by vegetable oils and herbs. There are two workshops in
Jinshan and a research center called Yuan International Herb Research & Development. The
soap is sold in 400 stores around Taiwan, with many others exported to China, Singapore,
4
South Korea, Malaysia and Japan. Yuan Soap uses local herbs and assures safe and clean
materials. Major materials are like Wild Mugwort and Alpinia Speciosa from Yuan Farm.
They believe authentic and in-depth product stories help to promote their technique ability
unceasingly and increase barnd value. Yuan Soap devotes their efforts to searching for special
and meaningful small farmers in Taiwan, which is the essence of Yuan Soap’s brand concept.
Lavender Cottage was established by two girls with tons of courage: Grace Zhan and
Tiffany Lin. Many years ago, both resigned from their jobs and comfort zone to peruse their
dreams of runing a coffee shop at countryside in Xinshe, Taiwan. It was formally incorporated
in 2001, Lavender Cottage has six brands (Lavender Cottage, Gogostore, Hakka Lifestyle,
Adagio, Moncoeur and Good Days) for various fields. These fields consist of leisure, catering,
guesthouse and fragrance product.
Whenever Lavender Cottage's team makes a decision, they think about three questions
“ Do you like it？Are you happy？Does it have any meaning？”. The team is always
passionate about their job as well as brings customers joy. Every brand is concerned for the
local matter, and they always make sure Lavender Cottage’s product materials are made by
the local farmers. Every store shows their brand image and local characteristic. Furthermore,
they look after local people’s need.
Data collection
Before the official data collection, first interview was conducted with the founder of
Yuan Soap and the president of Lavender Cotta to gain their permission to research these two
firms. There were two stages of data collection. In the first stage, we conducted manager
interview with preliminary analysis, and the result of the preliminary analysis guided second
stage of data collection by identifying further interviewees and interview questions. We
improved and shrank the range of data collection to processes, so we identified key
interviewees based on the preliminary data analysis.
All the interviews were face-to-face interviews. A total of 16 in-depth interviews were
conducted and the length of the interviews ranged from 1 hour to 2 hours. Lavender Cottage’s
interviews comprised one of Founders, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Strategy Officer,
Adagio President, Human Resource Manager, Marketing Manager, and Operations Managers.
Yuan Soap interviews comprised Promoter, General President, Marketing Assistant Manager,
Production Management, Factory Manager and Special Assistant. In the first stage interviews,
we asked general questions about brand mind and product strategy. In the second stage,
interview was focused on subject that emerged in the first stage interviews, and that were
selected for more detailed study. The data were all recorded for later coding and analysis after
5
the interview.
Data analysis
Researchers utilize an iterative reading strategy following the procedures by Strauss &
Corbin (1990). For the first stage of open coding, researchers read data line-by-line analysis
and then sought to identify, categorize and describe discrete ideas into categories and
subcategories. At the second stage of axial coding, researchers identify relationships among
the open codes through inductive and educative thinking. When researchers coded the data,
they moved back and forth between open and axial coding to refine the categories. In the final
coding of selective coding, the essential idea is to create a storyline that includes all of core
concepts.
In pursuit of these aims, reports from each interview were entered in two case-studies
database (grouped into the three examples).
FINDINGS
In this section, we present research findings that the concept of reciprocal value
proposition can be used to initiate and lead mutually reinforcing mechanism between
initiators and participants across a range of stakeholders of the firm. The mutually reinforcing
mechanism include identify stakeholders, determine reciprocal value propositions, measuring
shared value, facilitate dialogue and knowledge sharing, co-create collaboration opportunity.
The mutually reinforcing mechanism and their potential will improve value-in-use. These
activities implications for reciprocal value proposition are discussed. This allowed the
findings to relate explicitly to the research aim and questions posed.
Interactive communication
Stakeholders (Local community, employee, supplier, and consumer) identified a need for
dialogical interactive communications in the network. Local community, employee and
supplier communicate through dialogue involving contributions and listening to the other
party, made decisions in the selection of either existing content from other channels, or the
development of new content. These stakeholders facing respondents which realized that
consumer appreciated value proposition content when they were given an initiating, as well as
participatory, role in developing the value proposition.
Firm should try their best to understand stakeholders on their perception delivers to the
consumer. Respondents from the firm confirmed this:
6
“When we discuss about cooperation, he rejected me three times. The first reason, I don’t
like being interrupted. Second, I don’t like making bread for you. Third, I don’t think
that your customer understand my perception of bread. However one day he finally
identifies our thought and works with ours.(M10-355,365)”
The future commercial viability of stakeholder as a value proposition was located in
providing consumers with content that connected to firm’s intention. Considering resource
integration, the findings revealed that they have a positive attitude to contact with
stakeholders. The information provided as a learning resource was communicated with
stakeholders, who were well placed to utilize it in developing value propositions.
“We should talk about brand mind with supplier and let supplier know our brand mind.
When supplier believes our delivered value, they will support you. The dialogical
communication is effective. (F5-388,390)”
Reciprocal value propositions as a mutually reinforcing mechanism
Laczniak (2006) comments “expectation of society not to be disadvantaged by costs of
business operation that might be externalized to society as exchange occurs and consumers
pursue their happiness.” He takes care of societal and ethical dimensions of the emerging
S-D logic of marketing. Lusch (2007) indicated that combining opinion of value and
stakeholders provides a useful conceptual framework for their study of external market. We
integrate Frow & Payne (2011) & Pfitzer, Bockstette & Stamp(2013) concepts, consisting of
five steps, coupling the stakeholder concept, and value co-creation with the purpose of
co-creating reciprocal value proposition that can serve as a mutually reinforcing mechanism:
(1) Identify stakeholders
(2) Determine Reciprocal value propositions
(3) Measuring shared value
(4) Facilitate dialogue and knowledge sharing.
(5) Co-create collaboration opportunity
These five process steps provide managerial direction for addressing the issue of
reciprocal value. These process steps involve measurement, monitoring and feedback,
integrating knowledge and resource to be essential. Indeed, they reinforce one another.
Collectively these steps should assist in facilitating improved reciprocal value, balancing
value co-creation opportunities within community of stakeholders. The resulting co-created
reciprocal value proposition represent a mechanism for mutually co-created value shared
between stakeholders.
7
Identify stakeholders
A challenge for firm is that they are positioned in a loose stakeholder system, but may
not be fully aware of all the constituent entities and their importance (Payne et al., 2005). The
stakeholders include employees, suppliers, consumer, and local community. How we can
choose and confirm stakeholder accurately? The answer is firm follows what brand mind they
want to do and brand value show your advantage devotedly. Firm and stakeholder are kindred
spirits that usually occurs through similarity of pursuits. As the saying goes, “Birds of a
feather flock together.”
“How do these people know each other? Seems like one hook up with another, I think
people who are kindred spirits will gather together, naturally meet more people who are
similar. (M8, 439-441)”
Some central questions that research include: Who are the suitable stakeholders of firm?
What emphasis should be placed on each stakeholder? How do conflicts get resolved between
the diverse needs of the stakeholders? Mitchell et al. (1997) indicated that the help accorded
by a firm to the interests of different stakeholders will be based on executives’ perceptions.
Determine Reciprocal value propositions
Abela & Murphy (2008) draw attention to the importance of core values. Firm recognize
of gaining insight into the needs they seek to address. They direct research to build a
comprehensive view of the problem. The knowledge provides the basis for anticipating
resource requirement and identifying the necessary execution capabilities inside outside the
firm. We advocate an approach aimed at increasing reciprocal value, rather than just firm
profit.
“I think the first condition is this product can be trusted, the trust can tell from your
feelings… the second condition is, he/she has a story, we do not care on whether this
product is from the local area, but managing local products, who is working hard to
make this happen… we have to explore, using our own feeling to understand the process
and endeavors. (M10,331-340)”
Measuring shared value
Companies seeking to deliver scalable social and business benefits need to able to
monitor their progress. It considers how much social change is needed to unlock business
value. Prahalad & Ramaswamy (2004) highlight the value co-creation opportunities resulting
from the transformation of customers from “passive audiences” to “active players”. The
business plan can be used as a road map to monitor the initiative’s progress in achieving the
targeted social and business benefit.
8
“We wish to find ways for the products from Jixian District to be made and promoted,
therefore these Jixian District citizens are helping us to find good local products, how to
utilize their product, then we can commercialize and promoted to other areas… We really
like to think some new ideas which can help these famers to sustain and continue their
business, and then we can promote these products into the channels. (F6,262-267)”
Facilitate dialogue and knowledge sharing
S-D logic where unidirectional communication gives way to reciprocal communication,
or dialogical communication in those situation where the parties involved purposefully
engage in working together and learning together (Ballantyne, 2004; Lusch & Vargo, 2006).
The process includes knowing through knowledge renewal, relating through relationship
development, and communicating through dialogue and other forms of communicative
interaction.
“In our position to assist them is, first, give him/her a direction, then through our
experience and teaching, or assist them to accumulate some success, through these small
successes, we can start by giving them bigger mission for them to change, which gives
them more confidence to try bigger projects. (M10, 73-76)”
Co-create collaboration opportunity
As a firm understands stakeholder’s problems and needs more thoroughly helps define
what can be improved and by how much, and the value that change to the firm. A deeply held
social purpose is also important for co-creation, forming the basis for trusted relationships.
The value creating processes that potentially for co-learning and co-development of new skills
and knowledge along way. Dialogical communication has the potential for revealing new
value creating possibilities (Ballantyne et al., 2011).
“You really have to be friendlier to treat your customer and neighbors, once you have
done that, and when they have established you are a friendly company, they will all treat
you the same way. What comes around goes around. (M9, 423-425)”
The value community model
Collectively, the purpose of the study confirms targeted stakeholder to participate in
developing value propositions as reciprocal promises of value. From the case studies, the
stakeholders include local community/ suppliers, expert, employee, and consumer. Building
reciprocal value proposition from firm and stakeholder are two-way produce. The model is
schematized in figure 1.
9
The classification of stakeholders represents to developing strategies for successful
relationships and overall objective of improving firm performance. It also provides a structure
for considering stakeholder’s reciprocal value proposition. Although Ballantyne (2003)
indicated briefly idea for stakeholder, the literature did not reveal systematic reviews of such
RVP. From Frow & Payne (2011) option, we find that academics and practitioners have
slowly extended the use of the VP concept to other stakeholder. We consider use of the
concept in the model. Firm initiate in developing value propositions as reciprocal promises of
value but stakeholder will always determine what is of value in their own terms (Ballantyne et
al., 2011). Relationship building and their potential for improving value-in-use are discussed.
Local
Expert
Community
/Supplier
Firm
Employee
Consumer
Figure 1 value community model
Relationship characteristics
We start with the stakeholder experience in terms of relationship building which we have
identified. First, criteria to give suitable candidate for the creation and application of
knowledge resources; Second, stakeholder relationship type to develop these relationships;
third, the relationship norm needed to build the stakeholder experience, especially when
co-created through dialogue and learning together. We integrate the relationship building as an
augmented S-D logic. We offer some thoughts on the development and practical use of
reciprocal value propositions for generating sustainable betterment.
Selection criteria
The firm is loyal and faith their brand spirit, because they recognize that attract right
stakeholder by brand value. Through brand position firm show their product or service
difference between competitors (Kotler, 2002), and the purpose is to make the special space of
the stakeholder’s mind. The idea provided a special answer, because it used a different starting
10
point. It began by focusing on the experiences of all the stakeholders who would be involved
in or affected by the new offering. During the process, firm will discover that the answer to its
new idea lay in the experience of stakeholders.
Stakeholder relationship type
Relationships are always present wherever there is an interaction between two or more
parties. The social norms usually are formed among the group, the norms are the group
behavior of principle and the behavior is to be accepted from member of the group (Napier &
Gershenfeld, 1999). When people believe or submit others group norms, they will change
personal attitude behavior (Fisbein & Ajzen, 1975). How to manage relationship quality is a
consequence of learning together over time. This is an important issue, because relationships
that are beneficial to all parties provide structural support that is useful for sustaining further
value-creating activities (Ballantyne & Varey, 2006).
Relationship phase
Firms maybe obtain short term advantage form one-way message systems, but it is
unclear how societies or indeed any of a firm’s constituent stakeholders benefit in the long
term (Ballantyne & Varey, 2006). Many scholars recognize focus of marketing from tradition
once trade move to long term relationship (Gronroos, 1990; Morgan & Hunt, 1994). We
reflect on interaction-based activities for creating value between suppliers, local community,
employee, and consumer. We have emphasized that long term relationships can provide
structural help that is useful for sustaining value creating activities.
11
CONCLUSION
Managerial Implications
We provide empirical evidence that provides new insights into mutually reinforcing
mechanism in practice, which explicates the often inherit dynamics. Stakeholders have gone
beyond their traditional role to become innovation partner of the focal company, which is not
only as a source of stimuli and new ideas, but also as creator, thus providing greater
value-in-use for the ultimate end-users. The case study shows that interaction among the
stakeholders was a significant enabler of organizational learning and knowledge transfer
(Johnston et al., 2006), which fostered the integration of resources from one partner with the
processes of other parties (Vargo & Lusch, 2008; Mele, 2009).
We infer reciprocal value proposition have a key role to play in co-creating value
between different stakeholders, acting as a mechanism within a marketing system and, that
S-D logic help firm address reciprocal value proposition in a more holistic and integrated
manner. Our research extends the understanding of reciprocal value proposition in the context
of S-D logic and provides new insight into value co-creation processes in stakeholders for
relationships. Therefore, this study suggests that a firm can rethink its cooperation with
stakeholders from the perspective, which could enable it to respond to emerging opportunities
better by accelerating the translation of its accumulated resources into actionable strategies
and activities.
Limitations and Directions for future Research
Such research is still in its infancy, but it may have a contribution to unravel the mystery
of translation. The development of reciprocal value proposition within stakeholders can create
opportunities for value co-creation and provide a mechanism for creating greater stability
within these relationships. Our work suggests a number of areas for future research should be
focused on taking a reciprocal value proposition view on marketing strategy. Yet further
research exploring the development and application of reciprocal value propositions is needed.
There is a need for more detailed study of the adoption and use of reciprocal value
propositions within organizations. An important future research area is the investigation of
how reciprocal value propositions might enable development of a communicative interaction
platform between a firm and its stakeholder community to access knowledge about evolving
business conditions, opportunities and constraints.
12
REFERENCES
[1] Abela, A., Murphy, P. “Marketing with integrity: ethics and the service-dominant logic
for marketing,” . Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2008, 36 (1), 39-53.
[2] Badot, O., Cova, B. “The myopia of new marketing panaceas:the case for rebuilding our
discipline,” . Journal of Marketing Management, 2008, 24(1), 205-219.
[3] Ballantyne, D. “A relationship-mediated theory of internal marketing,”. European
Journal of Marketing, 2003, 37(9), 1242-1260.
[4] Ballantyne, D. “Dialogue and its role in the development of relationship specific
knowledge,” . Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 2004, 19(2), 114-123.
[5] Ballantyne, D., Frow, P., Varey, R. J., Payne, A. “Value propositions as communication
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
practice: Taking a wider view,” . Industrial Marketing Management, 2011, 40(2),
202-210.
Ballantyne, D., Varey, R. J. “Creating value-in-use through marketing interaction: The
exchange logic of relating, communicating and knowing,” . Marketing Theory, 2006,
6(3), 335-348.
Christensen, J. F., Foss, N. J., Dynamic corporate coherence and competence-based
competition: Theoretical foundations and strategic implications. In: A. Heene & R.
Scanchez (Eds), Competence-Based Strategy Management. New York, NY: Wiley, 1997.
Christopher, M., Payne, A., Ballantyne, D., Relationship Marketing: Creating
Stakeholder Value. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2002.
Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. “Building Theories from Case Study Research,” . Academy of
Management Review, 1989, 14(4), 532-550.
Etgar, M. “A descriptive model of the consumer co-production process,” . Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 2007, 36(1), 97-108.
Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I., Belief, attitude, intension, and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research Reading. MA : Addison-Wesley, 1975.
Flint, D. J., Mentzer, J. 2006. Striving for integrated value chain management. In R. F.
Lusch, & S. L. Vargo (Eds.), The service dominant logic of marketing, dialog, debate
and directions: 139–149. New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2006.
Freeman, R.E., Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman/Ballinger, NY,
1984
[14] Frow, P., Payne, A. “A stakeholder perspective of value proposition concept,” . European
Journal of Marketing, 2011, 45(1), 223-240.
[15] Glaser, S. “The value of the manager in the value chain,” . Management Decision, 2006,
44(3), 442-447.
[16] Gouillart, F., Billings, D. “Community-Powered Problem Solving,” . Harvard Business
Review, 2013, 80, 71-77.
13
[17] Gronroos, C. Service management and marketing: managing the moments of truth in
service competition. Lexington books, LM, 1990.
[18] Gummesson, E. “Extending the new dominant logic: from customer centricity to
balanced centricity,” . Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,2008, 36(1), 15-17.
[19] Gummesson, E. “Relationship marketing and a new economy: it’s time for de ‐
programming,” . Journal of Services Marketing, 2002, 16(7), 585-589.
[20] Halinen, A., To¨rnroos, J. “Using case methods in the study of the contemporary business
networks,” . Journal of Business Research, 2005, 58(9), 1285-1297.
[21] Hamel, G., Prahalad, C. K. “Strategic as Stretch and Leverage,” . Harvard Business
Review, 1993, March-April: 75-84.
[22] Herriott, R. E., Firestone, W. A. “Multisite qualitative policy research optimizing
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
descripition and generalizability,” . Educational Researcher, 1983, 12(2) 14-19.
Jaworski, B. J., Kohli, A. J., Co-creating the voice of the customer. In R. F. Lusch, S. L.
Vargo (Eds.), The service dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate and directions:
109-117. New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2006.
Johnston, W., Peters, L. & Gassenheimer, J. “Questions about network dynamics:
characteristics, structures and interactions,” . Journal of Business Research, 2006, 59(8),
945-954.
Kotler, P., Marketing management (pp. 11). NJ: Prentice Hall Inc, 2002.
Laczniak, Gene R., Some Societal and Ethical Dimensions of the Service-Dominant
Logic Perspective of Marketing, in Robert F. Lusch & Stephen L. Vargo, (Eds.), The
Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: 279-285. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2006.
[27] Lerro, A. “A stakeholder-based perspective in the value impact assessment of the project
"valuing intangible assets in scottish renewable SMEs",” . Measuring Business
Excellence,2011, 15(3), 3-15.
[28] Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L., and Tanniru, M. “Service, value networks and learning,” .
Journal of the academy of marketing science, 2010, 38(1), 19-31.
[29] Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L.. “Service-dominant logic: Reactions, reflections and
refinements,”. Marketing Theory, 2006, 6(3), 281-288.
[30] Lusch, R. F., Webster Jr., F. E. “A stakeholder-unifying, cocreation philosophy of
marketing,” . Journal of Macromarketing, 2011 31(2), 129-134.
[31] Lusch, R.F. “Marketing’s evolving identity: defining our future,” . Journal of Public
Policy and Marketing, 2007, 26(2), 261-268.
[32] Lusch, R.F., Vargo, S.L., Wessels, G. “Toward a conceptual foundation for service
science: contributions from service-dominant logic,” . IBM Systems Journal, 2008, 47(1),
5-14.
[33] Maglio, P. P., J. Spohrer.“Fundamentals of Service Science,” . Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 2008, 36(1), 18-20.
14
[34] Mele, C., Tiziana, R. S., Colurcio, M. “Co-creating value innovation through resource
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
integration,” . International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 2010, 2(1), 60-78.
Mele, C., Value logic in networks: resource integration by stakeholders. Sinergie, 2009.
Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., Wood, D.J. “Toward a theory of stakeholder identification
and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts,” . Academy of
Management Review, 1997, 22(4), 853-886.
Morgan, R.M., Hung, S.D. “The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing,” .
Journal of Marketing, 1994, 58(3), 20-38.
Napier, R. W., Gershenfeld, M. K., Groups: theory and experience. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1999.
O’Cass, A., Ngo, L.V. “Examining the firms’ value creation process: a managerial
perspective of the firms’ value offering strategy and performance,” . British Journal of
Management, 2011, 22(4), 646-671.
Payne, A., Ballantyne, D., Christopher, M. “A stakeholder approach to relationship
marketing strategy: The development and use of the “six markets” model,” . European
Journal of Marketing, 2005, 39(7/8), 855-871.
Penrose, E. T., The Theory of Growth of the firm. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc,
1959.
Pfitzer, M., Bockstette, V., Stamp, M. “Innovating for shared value,” . Harvard Business
Review, 2013, 9, 3-9.
Porter, M., Competitive Strategy. New York: Free Press, 1980.
Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V. “Co-opting customer competence,” . Harvard Business
Review, 2004, 78, 79-90.
Sanchez, R., A. Heene, Thomas, H., Dynamics of competence-based competition: Theory
and practice in the new strategic management. Oxford, UK: Pergamon, Elservier
Science Ltd, 1996.
Strauss, A., Corbin, J., Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and
techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc, 1990.
Tan, H. P. “The Study of the Relationship between Firm Growth Opportunities and Debt
Ratio,” . Asia Pacific Management Review, 1998, 3(2), 227-234.
Truong, Y., Simmons, G., Palmer, M. “Reciprocal value propositions in practice:
Constraints in digital markets,” . Industrial Marketing Management, 2012, 41(1),
197-206.
[49] Varey, R. J. “Marketing as an interaction system,” . Australasian Marketing Journal,
2008, 16(1), 78-93.
[50] Vargo, S. L. “Customer integration and value creation,” . Journal of Service Research,
2008, 11(2), 211-215.
15
[51] Vargo, S. L. “Market systems, stakeholders and value propositions,“ . European Journal
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55]
[56]
of Marketing, 2011, 45(1), 217-222.
Vargo, S. L., Lusch, R. F. “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing,” . Journal of
Marketing, 2004, 68(1), 1-17.
Vargo, S. L., Lusch, R. F. “Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution,” . Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2008, 36(1), 1-10.
Webster, F. E., Market-Driven Management: How to Define, Develop and Deliver
Customer Value, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2002.
Woodruff, R. B. “Customer Value: The Next Source for Competitive Advantage,” .
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1997, 25(2), 139-153.
Yin, R. K., Case study research-design and methods (3nd ed.). Thousand oaks, chalif,
CA: sage publishing, 2003.
16