Dr Michael Cassop Thompson

‘Value’ is worthy of study as it determines success for leaders, provides competitive advantage and contributes to economic prosperity. Indeed value may be a super-ordinate concept that has ‘upstaged’ previous research areas such as service quality, service satisfaction and relationship marketing. Many studies use ‘silo-based approaches’ when considering value, for example economic, socio-cultural and environmental value are often studied separately (Smith-Christensen, 2009). This study is inter-disciplinary being located in the overlap between strategic, customer-centric and value-laden disciplines. This paper provides insights by distilling extant ‘value’ themes. First, it critiques the plethora of value-types and complexities germane to value location. Then it holistically reflects on the distinct positions that have occupied value research to-date, namely ‘transactional’, ‘co-creation’ and ‘value-seeking’. There is much research into the first two but less on value-seeking. Furthermore little research exists on evaluating whether more than one organisational value position exists. Hence this paper posits that both distinct and overlapping positions may co-exist in organisations. These distinct and overlapping positions are juxtaposed with customer versus company-centric orientations to produce an original positioning framework that will be useful for practitioners and scholars alike. Finally the framework’s limitations are considered by using exemplars and analogies to promote better understanding.

This paper critiques extant research apropos the key value concepts, theories, and models. It aligns with those who have taken a hermeneutic approach (Holbrook 2021; Schmitt et al, 2022). Many academics acknowledge that consumers' attitudes do not necessarily match their behaviour. This may result from their approach to value and/or their individual value-types. This paper critiques extant research apropos the key concepts, theories, and models pertaining to value. It draws on seminal authors to provide a concise overview of value perspectives, location and processes. It critiques key discourses (namely Goods Dominant, Experiential, Resource Based and Customer Dominant) and considers value as a polysemic concept. This paper does not seek to establish value as a meta-narrative nor something that should be marbled through all papers. It simply seeks to provide a key underpinning which will support many researchers. It does not delve into value from a practice perspective nor into developments such as Service Dominant (SD) logic. It does however refer to the antecedents for both of these areas. Old-fashioned concepts such as value-giving and propositions still dominate the discourses in many business schools. Ultimately value may be proposed but it cannot be given. Only stakeholders can take value as it 'resides' (only) in their minds. Primarily, value seeking practices have had relatively little research. Therefore, this study provides an opportunity to better understand the distinction between the value being sought and its constituent value-types. This review improves conceptualisation for those studying inter alia value, values, ethics, responsibility and sustainability. As a literature review it lacks empirical testing, however it provides key insights into the complex area of value.

Purpose The aim of this conceptual paper, predicated on a hermeneutic literature review, is to improve understanding of the nature of value continues to be extensively studied with its ability to create competitive advantage. Understanding what constitutes value improves corporate social responsibility (CSR) comprehension, including managerial CSR values. This paper aligns with studies into value and/or CSR, whether hermeneutic or otherwise. Design/methodology/approach This study provides a reflexively critical understanding of the value literature. It focuses on the “identifying” stage of a hermeneutic circle (identifying central terms, core journals and seminal authors). A hermeneutic helix is proposed to better reflect the need of constant re-interpretation of the relevant literature. Findings Themes include value location (value in exchange, value in use, value in meaning and value in context); architecture (pathways, constellations and networks); creation versus determination; and value types. Research limitations/implications This paper neither seeks to define value nor delve into the overarching value discourses. It does, however, refer to the antecedents for these areas. As a hermeneutic literature review, it lacks empirical testing. Practical implications CSR practices are strongly influenced by personal values. Hence, CSR practitioners must identify the processes involved and differentiate between the sought value and value types. Social implications The paper could engender better understanding gaps between stakeholder attitudes and practices, i.e. consumers self-identifying as “green” may not engage in ecologically sound practices. As discussed herein, the value sought by university students influences where (and what) to study. Originality/value Outdated notions such as value propositions are widely used; value may be proposed; however, only stakeholders can take value. What constitutes value is under-represented in the CSR literature. Hence, terms such as value and values (i.e. value types) are incorrectly used interchangeably.

This paper critiques extant research apropos the key value concepts, theories, and models. It aligns with those who have taken a hermeneutic approach (Holbrook 2021; Schmitt et al, 2022). Many academics acknowledge that consumers' attitudes do not necessarily match their behaviour. This may result from their approach to value and/or their individual value-types. This paper critiques extant research apropos the key concepts, theories, and models pertaining to value. It draws on seminal authors to provide a concise overview of value perspectives, location and processes. It critiques key discourses (namely Goods Dominant, Experiential, Resource Based and Customer Dominant) and considers value as a polysemic concept. This paper does not seek to establish value as a meta-narrative nor something that should be marbled through all papers. It simply seeks to provide a key underpinning which will support many researchers. It does not delve into value from a practice perspective nor into more recent developments such as Service Dominant (SD) logic. It does however refer to the antecedents for both of these areas. Old-fashioned concepts such as value-giving and propositions still dominate the discourses in many business schools. Ultimately value may be proposed but it cannot be given. Only customers can take value. Value resides in customers minds. Primarily, customers’ value seeking practices have had relatively little research. Therefore, this study provides an opportunity to better understand the distinction between the value being sought and customers’ value-types. This review improves conceptualisation for those studying inter alia value, values, ethics, responsibility and sustainability. As a literature review it lacks empirical testing, however it provides key insights into the complex area of value.