استكشف المجموعة الواسعة من العناوين المتاحة.

Online communities frequently create significant economic and relational value for community participants and beyond. It is widely accepted that the underlying source of such value is the collective flow of knowledge among community participants. We distinguish the conditions for flows of tacit and explicit knowledge in online communities and advance an unconventional theoretical conjecture: Online communities give rise to tacit knowledge flows between participants. The crucial condition for these flows is not the advent of novel, digital technology as often portrayed in the literature, but instead the technology’s domestication by humanity and the sociality it affords. This conjecture holds profound implications for theory and research in the study of management and organization, as well as their relation to information technology.

Research summary: This article studies strategic interactions between firms that form alliances to exploit synergistic benefits. Firms cooperate to create value, but they can also compete to capture value. Fundamental questions rarely addressed by strategy scholars relate to how the configuration of control over resources influences firms' strategies, the potential for termination, and the emergence of cooperation and trust. The formal results reveal crucial aspects of the interorganizational rent-generating process and yield testable implications. With greater synergistic benefits, firms invest more, but they also compete more intensively to capture more value. With symmetric control, more value gets created, which limits the potential for termination, but also exacerbates the competition for value; from a relational perspective, this form of control augments the calculative rationale of cooperation and trust. Managerial summary: When forming an alliance to exploit synergies, firms engage in a complicated strategic interaction that is part cooperation and part competition. What happens when partner firms cooperate and invest to create value while competing and using costly adversarial tactics to capture value? The analysis reveals that with greater synergistic benefits, firms invest more in value creation, but the fear of opportunism pushes them to waste more resources on value capture tactics. The balance between value creation and value capture, and the possibility that the alliance is terminated depend on the configuration of control over resources. The analysis further reveals under what conditions there can be trust between the partners, such that they focus on value creation and avoid wasting resources in the competition for value.

We examine how new biotechnology firms (NBFs) select pharmaceutical firms as R&D allies as a function of value creation and value appropriation considerations. We develop a theoretical framework to understand partnering decisions accounting for both, a potential partner's ability as well as incentives to appropriate and create value within an R&D alliance. Our empirical findings show that NBFs are more likely to ally with pharmaceutical firms with the ability to create value, as long as these firms have the incentives to use their skills to create rather than appropriate value. Our study highlights the double-edged sword nature of value creation skills and provides a deeper understanding into the contextual factors that determine when potential R&D partners will perceive such skills as increasing appropriation risks.

Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE)-listed companies’ adoption of shared value is still in its infancy stage. In South Africa, some JSE-listed companies in the finance sector have adopted a shared value approach similar to responsible capitalism called Responsible Investments (RI) or impact investment. The purpose of the study was to investigate Shared Value Creation approaches adopted by JSE-listed companies. A documentary research approach, which consists of reviewing, analysing and examining information was adopted. The sources included journal articles, books, Frameworks, Guidelines and Codes. The results of the study indicated that JSE-listed companies, guided by the King Code, have adopted some elements of the shared-value model although integrated reports are purportedly not using the term.

Because extant literature on the service logic of marketing is dominated by a metaphorical view of value co-creation, the roles of both service providers and customers remain analytically unspecified, without a theoretically sound foundation for value creation or co-creation. This article analyzes value creation and co-creation in service by analytically defining the roles of the customer and the firm, as well as the scope, locus, and nature of value and value creation . Value creation refers to customers’ creation of value-in-use; co-creation is a function of interaction. Both the firm’s and the customer’s actions can be categorized by spheres (provider, joint, customer), and their interactions are either direct or indirect, leading to different forms of value creation and co-creation. This conceptualization of value creation spheres extends knowledge about how value-in-use emerges and how value creation can be managed; it also emphasizes the pivotal role of direct interactions for value co-creation opportunities.

While social entrepreneurship (SE) as a field of study has progressed some distance over the past four decades, it is plagued by many unanswered, yet fundamental, questions. The SE literature is filled with an abundance of disputes, controversies, and alternative perspectives. Although this can suggest a healthy and robust discipline, it can also raise questions regarding the legitimacy and relevancy of the field, and uncertainty regarding where it is headed. In this research, we provide a systematic overview of major unresolved issues characterizing the contemporary study of SE in the form of thirteen divides. These divides cover such issues as social value creation, social innovation, nature of the process, agents, entrepreneurial orientation, scalability, venture creation, revenue sources, organizational outcomes, efficacy, and the appropriate disciplinary home. Rather than taking sides on each divide, we discuss how these diverse perspectives can be accommodated based on the process perspective. We present an inclusive approach to SE that provides a common platform for advancing the field while allowing for diverse streams of research.

This paper explores an increasingly prevalent element of board-level commitment to sustainability. We propose a theoretical framework under which the existence and associated actions of board-level sustainability committees are motivated by shared value creation, where the interests of a diverse group of stakeholders are satisfied and sufficient profit is achieved. Using hand-collected data, we find that sustainability committees are heterogeneous in focus and vary in their effectiveness. Specifically, we disaggregate the sustainability committee construct based on stakeholder group focus (i.e., community, employee, environment, and consumer/supplier) and find that associations between sustainability committees and performance outcomes are stronger when committees focused on a specific stakeholder group are paired with relevant performance outcomes. We generally find that sustainability committees are effective at impacting relevant strengths, but do not mitigate relevant concerns. These results are consistent with the shared value framework, where committees both generate value by pursuing sustainability-related opportunities and protect value by monitoring, but not necessarily mitigating sustainability-related risks. Univariate tests suggest that effective committees are also larger, more independent, and meet more frequently. Finally, we propose a new method to classify industries based on their sensitivity to certain stakeholder groups and find that the effectiveness of committees focused on specific stakeholders is more pronounced in industries that are sensitive to these stakeholders.

We address current criticisms of the RBV (oversight of dynamism, environmental contingencies, and managers' role) by linking value creation in dynamic environmental contexts to the management of firm resources. Components of the resource management model include structuring the resource portfolio; bundling resources to build capabilities; and leveraging capabilities to provide value to customers, gain a competitive advantage, and create wealth for owners. Propositions linking resource management and value creation are offered to shape future research.

PurposeThe purpose is to understand how the role of quality functions might evolve amidst digitalisation and an increased focus on services. This study focuses on customer feedback and how it can function as activation triggers for developing absorptive capacity, as well as how it relates to the value creation processes.Design/methodology/approachFollowing a qualitative research design, the authors gathered primary data from interviews with quality managers at 17 UK and Swedish firms and triangulated it with secondary information from the firms' web pages.FindingsThe findings show that customer feedback-based activation triggers can support development of absorptive capacity in the quality function if there are established processes for acting on customer feedback. This is often the case for codified feedback, which normally concerns products. However, digitalisation offers new opportunities of engaging in value co-creation, and firms need to develop digital capabilities to manage new technologies and data analytic tools. For personalised feedback (the main category of service-related feedback), established processes are missing.Originality/valueThis study work contributes to knowledge about how quality functions respond to customer feedback on both products and services. It clarifies why the quality function sometimes struggles to contribute to service quality as much as to product quality. From a theory development perspective, the authors contribute to understanding customer feedback-based activation triggers, how they lead to development of absorptive capacity and their relation to value co-creation on a functional level.

I show how company strategies that focus on improving consumer benefits can create value by increasing consumer payments to an entire value system. This \"consumer benefit experienced\" viewpoint on value creation complements the value capture orientations of the firm positioning, transaction cost, and resource-based approaches. It helps to clarify often-blurred distinctions between value creation and value capture and offers an additional tool for addressing intractable issues in strategic management.