A Stakeholder Perspective of Business Strategy: Knowledge versus Goods
Mateus T. S. Cozer, Marcos C. Campomar
The fundamental question in the field of strategic management is how firms achieve and sustain
competitive advantage. This paper is an essay and develops a stakeholder perspective of business
strategy. Its thesis is that the organizational mode through which individuals cooperate affects the
knowledge they apply to business activity. Our aim is to develop an empirically relevant
perspective of why firms are formed: a perspective based on knowledge differences between
individuals rather than the threat of consuming the earth’s resource beyond its sustainable
capacity of renewal. The work dual-core is based, first on new institutional economics and
second transaction-cost approach. A principal point is that knowledge-based considerations can
outweigh traditional goods-centered dominant logic. The paper considers knowledge as a
(Keywords: Theory of the Firm; Strategic Management; Stakeholder Engagement; Transaction
This paper develops a stakeholder perspective of business strategy. Its thesis is that the
mechanisms of governance through which individuals cooperate affect the knowledge they apply
to business activity. For example, Y and Z might face a choice between working together as
employees in a firm or completing the same task as independent contractors. There will be a
difference in knowledge that is brought to bear, and hence in their join productivity, under the
two options. This conclusion depends on the straightforward assumption that Y and Z each
possess experience, insights or skills, which are to some extent different from those of the other.
Tacit knowledge, which can be learned only through personal experience (NELSON 1982), is an
example of know-how that is difficult to transfer ex ante. The difference in the knowledge that is
brought to bear, once anticipated, affects the choice of the mechanisms of governance. Thus, as
compared with resource-based perspective, we advance a separate (yet complementary) answer to
the question: why do firms exist?
As the literature makes clear, a knowledge-based view is the essence of stakeholder perspective.
Transparency about the sustainability of organizational activities is of interest to a diverse range
of stakeholders, including business, labor, non-governmental organizations, investors,
accountancy, and others. “Transparency can be defined as the complete disclosure of information
on the topics and indicators required to reflect impacts and enable stakeholders to make
decisions, and the processes, procedures, and assumptions used to prepare those disclosures”
(Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, 2006).
The insightful article by Vargo and Lusch (2004) argues that, because marketing has historically
been informed by static-equilibrium economics, it has had a goods-centered dominant logic.
Stephen Vargo and Robert Lusch (2004) enlightening marketing evolution towards a new
dominant logic. “Briefly, the academic focus is shifting from the thing being exchanged to one on
the process of exchange. Science has moved from a focus on mechanics to one on dynamics,
evolutionary development, and the emergence of complex adaptive systems. The service-centered
model of exchange rests on the joint propositions that (1) service provision is the fundamental
unit of exchange; (2) knowledge is the fundamental source of competitive advantage; (3) all
economic eras are fundamentally characterized as service economies; (4) indirect, monetized
exchange masks the services nature of the exchange process; (5) goods are appliances that serve
as a distribution mechanism for services; (6) the consumer is always a co producer of value; (7)
the enterprise can only make value propositions; and (8) a service-centered model of exchange is
inherently customer oriented and relational” (Vargo and Lusch, 2004).
This paper begins defining who a stakeholder is. We then identify key concepts used in this
study. These concern the nature of firm organization and individual behavior. We define the firm
in a way consistent with Coase (1937) and Williamson (1975, 1985a), among others. “Firms are
distinguished from markets based on an authority (employer-employee) relationship in the
former, as compared to autonomous parties contracting in the latter” (CONNER and
PRAHALAD, 1996). As to individual behavior, we assume bounded rationality (Simon 1957)
and the good business of happiness (CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, 2003). Individuals additionally are
taken to behave truthfully. This insures that we avoid opportunism-related reasons for the firm,
allowing us to focus on other, knowledge based considerations. This paper considers knowledge
as a network (BENKLER, 2006; BEINHOCKER, 2006). The Civil Sphere, addresses a world of
values and institutions that generates the capacity for social criticism and democratic integration
at the same time, such a sphere relies on solidarity (ALEXANDER, 2006). Concluding remarks
follows and the text ends with a possible research agenda.
Who is a Stakeholder?
Even though the stakeholder perspective is now well established and has received considerable
academic attention (Jones and Wicks, 1999; DONALDSON, 1995; HARRISON, 1999, 2005;
Clarke, 1998; Kaler, 2006), the nature of stakeholders continues to be debated. There are
numerous definitions of stakeholders in the governance literature, based in part on the economic
salience of these stakeholders (Aoki, 1984; Jones and Wicks, 1999; MAHONEY, 2006). The
current paper defines stakeholders broadly as those persons and groups who contribute to the
wealth-creating potential of the firm and are its potential beneficiaries and/or those who
voluntarily or involuntarily become exposed to risk from the activities of a firm (Clarkson, 1995).
Thus, stakeholders include shareholders (preferred and common), holders of options issued by
the firm, debt holders (Parrino and Weisbach, 1999), (banks, secured debt holders, unsecured
debt holders), employees (especially those investing firm-specific human capital) (Blair, 1996),
local communities (e.g., charities) (GRAYSON and HODGES, 2001), environment as “latent”
stakeholders (e.g., pollution) (Buysse and Verbeke, 2003), regulatory authorities (GRAYSON
and HODGES, 2001), the government (as tax collector) (MAHONEY, 2006), inter-
organizational alliance partners (Dyer and Singh, 1998; NOOTEBOOM, 2004), customers and
suppliers (GUMMESSON, 1999).
The main case of this paper is that high management of multi-national corporations must
encompass the five types of capital in their strategic decision making process and accountability
of business strategy to the stakeholders of the firm (ZADEK, 2001; GRAYSON and HODGES,
2001; AUGIER and MARCH, 2002; HARRISON, 2005; TEECE, 2002; ALLEN and GALE,
2002; MAHONEY, 2006; JENSEN, 2000; DUNNING, 1997; RUGMAN and VERBEKE, 2001;
The Mechanisms of Governance: Societal Risk
Using the standard established by Coase (1937) and concerned with the problem of social cost
(COASE, 1960), the main reason why it is profitable to establish a firm would seem to be that
there is a cost of using the price mechanism. The most obvious cost of “organizing” production
through the price mechanism is that of discovering what the relevant prices are. This cost may be
reduced but it will not be eliminated by the emergence of specialists who will sell this
information. There are negotiations to be undertaken, contracts have to be drawn up, inspections
have to be made, arrangements have to be made to settle disputes, and so on. A firm, therefore,
consists of the system of relationships, which comes into existence when the direction of
resources is dependent on an entrepreneur (Schumpeter, 1939; WIGGINS and RUEFLI, 2005;
Jacobides and Winter, 2007). Transaction cost economics subscribes to and work out the
combination of a “rational spirit” with a “systems” perspective. If we move from a regime of zero
transaction costs to one of positive transaction costs, what becomes immediately clear is the
crucial importance of the legal system in this new world. Coase (1960) explained in The Problem
of Social Cost that what are traded on the market are not, as is often supposed by economists,
physical entities but the rights to perform certain actions and the rights which individuals possess
are established by the legal system.
Otherwise, the question of uncertainty is one, which is often considered to be very relevant to the
study of the equilibrium and existence of the firm (KNIGHT, 1921). It seems improbable that a
firm would emerge without the existence of uncertainty. The threat of consuming the earth’s
resource beyond its sustainable capacity of renewal (global warming, water) is a great factor of
uncertainty. There are growing pressures on organizations to take greater responsibility for their
social, environmental and economic performance. Recognition of knowledge-based transaction
costs leads to a fuller realization of Coase's (1937) original insights as to the reasons for firm
organization (CONNER and PRAHALAD, 1996). Finally, in transaction cost economics
(COASE, 1937), the unit of analysis is the transaction.
“The stakeholder view requires that the entire economic value of the firm be considered and it is
not only shareholders who extract economic value from the firm beyond their opportunity costs.
In the case of collective action or small-numbers bargaining, the balance of bargaining power to
extract economic value may reside in suppliers, customers, (unionized) labor or other
stakeholders, whose benefits beyond their opportunity costs must be taken into account to capture
fully the firm’s entire economic value creation” (MAHONEY, 2006). While this advocated
approach for strategic management is undeniably economically sensible, it is noted here that this
stakeholder perspective is clearly at odds with the traditional shareholder wealth approach used in
most finance textbooks, which identifies the economic value of the firm as the value of all market
claims outstanding. “The shareholder vs. stakeholder debate has been ongoing for at least the last
nine decades” (MAHONEY, 2006).
Using the standard established by Williamson (1996), the mechanisms of governance used by this
paper over that secular debate are those from the new institutional economics (NORTH, 1991).
Institutions matter and are susceptible to analysis. Institutional economics is different but not
hostile to orthodoxy (FRIEDMAN, 1962). It is an interdisciplinary combination of law,
economics, and organization in which economics is the first among equals (Williamson, 1996).
According to Douglass North, Institutions are “the humanly devised constraints that structure
political, economic, and social interactions. They consist of both informal constraints (sanctions,
taboos, customs, traditions, and codes of conduct), and formal rules (constitutions, laws, property
rights)”. In consequence they structure incentives in human exchange, whether political, social or
economic (COASE, 1960).
Bowles and Gintis (1993) calls Walras´ fiction the notion that interaction among economic
agents are might be represent as if they were relationships among inputs and outputs. Perez
(2002) and Benkler (2006) detail the kuhnian process which evolved to the age of information
and telecommunications (KUHN, 1962).
Governance is also an exercise in assessing the efficacy of alternative modes (means) of
organization (Williamson, 1996). Masahiko Aoki (1984) views the firm as a coalition of the
stockholders (financial resources suppliers) and the workers (firm-specific human resources
suppliers) and specifies conditions under which a cooperative Nash solution may, or may not,
become a self-binding agreement. In the corporate governance debate only four types of
governance mechanisms are typically considered (GRANDORI, 2004):
• Pricing and exit mechanisms and voting mechanisms (KOTLER e KELLER, 2006;
• Hierarchical control (Eggerstsson, 1990);
• Formal regulation (BENKLER, 2002); and
• Property right allocation (BARZEL, 1997; Demsetz, 1967)
Let’s assume the holistic management of five different types of capital that reflect an
organization’s overall impact and wealth. The five capitals are:
• Natural capital – the environment (Cleveland, 1981);
• Social capital – social relationships and structures (GRANOVETTER, 1973, 1985, 1995,
• Human capital – people (FLEURY, 1996; BECKER, 1964; FREY, 2001);
• Manufactured capital – fixed assets (BENKLER, 2002; Eggertsson, 1990;
• Financial capital – profit and loss, sales, shares, cash (JENSEN, 2000);
Natural capital encompasses the other capitals as natural resources and ecological systems form
the basis of life, on which all organizations (and wider society) depend. Social, human and
manufactured capitals are critical components of an organization and its activities. High levels of
these capitals deliver value to both organizations and society, not to mention improving the
quality of life of stakeholders. Financial capital is crucial to the ongoing survival of an
organization, and is simply derived from the value that the other four capitals provide. All of the
capitals are heavily interlinked and there is some overlap between them
Risk analysis is broadly defined to include risk assessment, risk characterization, risk
communication, risk management, and risk policy. It may concern individuals, public and private
organizations, and society at a local, regional, national or global level (www.sra.org). Risk
assessment provides a formalized process to evaluate human, animal, and ecological responses
associated with exposure to environmental agents (ANDERSON, 2004). In the Risk Analysis
debate this paper considers only three types of risks:
• Risk identification, quantification and mitigation
• Communication within and between organisations
• Societal risk
Therefore, the stakeholder perspective of business strategy accountability and performance is
based through the five different types of capital.
Scandal and the Negation of Accountability: “The Spirit of Enron and the Capitalist Ethic”
“In the last century, democratic governments and large corporations commanded respect and
were regarded as leaders of society. But in recent years, they have lost their gloss” (GRAYSON
and HODGES, 2001). Strategic risk management is an increasing concern for both boards and
senior executives. Many recent business failures are due to senior level misjudgement and
mismanagement of risk, the consequences of which can range from embarrassment to serious
setback to bankruptcy.
The changing role of business in society has come to mean many things. Corporate sustainability,
corporate social responsibility, and corporate citizenship are but a few of the new terms that have
emerged to describe this period and process of challenge and change. There is, however, an
emerging consensus that the scope of the challenge is not confined to philanthropic activities, and
moreover extends beyond the more obvious legal responsibilities to include for example labour
standards in supplier factories, the accessibility by poor people to life-saving drugs, and the basis
by which and transparency of how management decisions are made. The Global Reporting
Initiative Guidelines illustrate just how broad the scope has become (www.globalreporting.org).
The Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI) vision is that reporting on economic, environmental, and
social performance by all organizations becomes as routine and comparable as financial
“The shifting role of business in society does, however, have a complex relationship to the matter
of law. At the same time, it is equally clear that the matter of what constitutes appropriate law
governing business behaviour is within the scope of the field of corporate responsibility”
(ZADEK, 2002). This paper has adopted the more general term ‘corporate responsibility’ to
cover the topic of why, when and how business can, should and does consciously address social,
environmental and economic (including financial) dimensions of its performance and impact
Economy and Governance: Corporate Social Responsibility
“Capitalism at the beginning of the twenty-first century is a variegated collection of economic
systems. Different countries’ economies are organized in very different ways, and corporate
governance – that is, decisions about how capital is allocated, both across and within firms – is
entrusted to very different sorts of people and constrained by very different institutions”
(MORCK, 2005). There is a significant trend toward democratization and decentralization of
authority. On an individual level, there is increased emphasis on “rights,” such as women’s
rights, indigenous rights and human rights broadly conceived. In the private sector, it is reflected
in “flatter” corporate structures and decentralized decision-making. Some entities, such as the
Internet or NGO networks, have no formal authority structure. The emergence of civil society as
an important voice in decision-making is a notable development. “A Great Transition would see
the emergence of a nested governance structure from the local to the global that balances the need
to sustain global social and environmental values with the desire for diversity in cultures and
strategies” (RASKIN, BANURI, GALLOPIN, GUTMAN, HAMOND, KATES, SWART, 2002).
With global reach, powerful brands, and a mission to hunt out corporate malpractice, NGOs can
powerfully influence the marketplace and climate for business – either as high profile challengers
or partners in finding new solutions.
Figure 1: Great Transition (RASKIN, 2002)
“Since the Berlim Wall came tumbling down an additional three billion people live in economies
that operate on market principles, spurring a globalization of capital, knowledge, and ideas”
(GRAYSON and HODGES, 2001). The economic transition means moving towards a system of
production, distribution and decisionmaking that is harmonized with equity, sustainability and
human fulfillment, the good business of happiness (CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, 2003). Assuming
limited cognitive abilities on the part of individuals (bounded rationality) and behavioral
assumptions (Mowen and Minor, 2003). It is a challenge to balance multiple objectives:
eradicating human deprivation, reducing inequality, staying within environmental carrying
capacity, and maintaining innovation. This would certainly include such policy instruments as
eco-taxes, social subsidies and green accounting (Global Reporting Initiative). But these would
be manifestations of deep processes that reorient the way the economy functions. The economy
becomes a means of serving people (stakeholders) and preserving nature, rather than an end in
itself. The transition would be expressed in altered behaviors and practices of people, firms,
governments and international governance systems.
“Philosophers have long held that happiness is the ultimate goal of existence. It may seen
counterintuitive to argue that happiness and business have anything to do with each other, since
for most people work is at best a necessary evil, and at worst, a burden. Yet the two are
inextricably linked. Strong relationships – a stable marriage, many friends – are correlated with
happiness” (CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, 2003; FREY, 2001). As the psychologist Abraham Maslow
has argued, the most basic needs are those that ensure survival – food, clothing, and housing.
Many people around the world are uncertain where their next meal is going to come from; for
them, the satisfaction of hunger brings a measure of happiness. “Another important connection
between happiness and business is that one cannot engage in production and distribution alone:
there is always a group of people involved, whether concern a small grocery store or a huge
conglomerate employing tens of thousand of people. A business organization whose employees
are happy is more productive, has a higher morale, and has a lower turnover”
The governance transition is about building institutions to advance the sustainability paradigm
through partnerships between diverse stakeholders and polities at local, national and global levels
(DALY, 1996; NORTH, 1990). While specific structures will remain a matter of adaptation and
debate, a proliferation of new forms of participation can be expected to complement and
challenge the traditional governmental system. The market is a social institution to be harnessed
by society for ecology and equity, not simply wealth generation. The stakeholder perspective of
the firm defines wealth through the five different types of capital in a Service-Based World.
Goods versus Services: Market Driven
Viewed in traditional sense, marketing focuses largely on operand resources, primarily goods, as
the unit of exchange. In its most rudimentary form, the goods centered view postulates the
following (VARGO and LUSCH, 2004):
1. The purpose of economic activity is to make and distribute things that can be sold.
2. To be sold, these things must be embedded with utility and value during the production
and distribution process and must offer to the consumer superior value in relation to
3. The firm should set all decision variables at a level that enables it to maximize the profit
from the sale of output.
4. For both maximum production control and efficient, the good should be standardizes and
produced away from the market.
5. The good can be inventoried until it demanded and then delivered to the consumer at a
“Because early marketing thought was concerned with agricultural products and then with other
physical goods, it was compatible with this rudimentary view” (VARGO and LUSCH, 2004).
Marketing inherit the view that value (utility) was embedded in a product from economics.
Alderson (1957) advised, “What is needed is not an interpretation of the utility created by
marketing, but a marketing interpretation of the role process of creating utility”. The service-
centered view of marketing implies that marketing is a continuous series of social and economic
processes that is largely focused on operant resources with which the firm is constantly striving to
make better value propositions than its competitors. The service-centered view can be stated as
follows (VARGO and LUSCH, 2004):
1. Identify or develop core competences, the fundamental knowledge and skills of an
economic entity that represent potential competitive advantage.
2. Identify other entities (potential customers) that could benefit from these competencies.
3. Cultivate relationships that involve the customers in developing customized,
competitively compelling value propositions to meet specific needs.
4. Gauge marketplace feedback by analyzing financial performance from exchange to learn
how to improve the firm’s offering to customers and improve firm performance.
This view is largely consistent resource advantage theory (CONNER and PRAHALAD, 1996;
HUNT, 2000) and core competency theory (DAY, 1994; PRAHALAD and HAMEL, 1990). Core
competences are not physical assets but intangible processes; they are bundles of skill and
technology (HAMEL and PRAHALAD, 1990). The focus of marketing on core competences
inherently places marketing at the center of the integration of business functions and disciplines.
Finally, the stakeholder perspective of the firm is service oriented.
“When a firm sees itself primarily as a manufacturer with an implied purpose of selling what it
makes, it sees the key to making more money as selling more and more goods. There is little or
no logic in selling fewer goods. In contrast, the service-dominant logic suggests that since these
goods are actually mechanisms for service provision, the customer is always buying a service
flow rather than a tangible thing, and thus the firm should perhaps reconsider the nature of its
offering. Stated alternatively, service-dominant logic offers an opportunity for the organization to
focus on selling a flow of service. This would encourage it to determine the optimal configuration
of goods, if any, for a level of service, the optimal organization or network configuration to
maintain the service, and the optimal payment mechanism in exchange for providing the service.
That is, the organization is encouraged to think about the service system” (VARGO, LUSCH and
MALTER, 2006). “In service marketing the concept of interaction between the consumer and
various resources and systems of the service firm was introduced as a core phenomenon. In
relationship marketing this was extended to relationships over time, where a set of interactions
take place in order to make it possible for their customers to manage their own processes in a
value-creating manner (value-in-use)” (GRÖNROOS, 2006).
Six differences between the goods- and service-centered dominant logic, all centered in the on
the distinction between operand and operant resources, are presented in Table 1. Constantin and
Lusch (1994) define operand resource as resources on which an operation or act is performed to
produce an effect, and they compare operand resources with operant resources, which are
employed to act on operand resources (and other operant resources). “A firm had factors of
production (largely operand resources) and a technology (an operant resource), which had value
to the extent that the firm could convert its operand resource into outputs at a low cost” (VARGO
and LUSCH, 2004). Finally, the traditional goods-centered dominant logic has drawn buying and
Operand and Operant resource Help Distinguish the Logic of the Goods- and Service-
Traditional goods-centered Emerging service-centered dominant logic
Primary unit of People exchange for goods. People exchange to acquire the benefits of
exchange These goods serve primarily specialized competences (knowledge and
as operand resources. skills), or services. Knowledge and skills are
Role of Goods Goods are operand Goods are transmitters of operant resources
resources and end products. (embedded knowledge); they are intermediate
Marketers take matter and “products” that are used by other operant
change its form, place, time, resources (customers) as appliances in value-
and possession. creation processes.
Role of customer The customer is the The customer is a co-producer of service.
recipient goods. Marketers Marketing is a process of doing things
do things to customers; they interaction with the customer. The customer is
segment them, penetrate primarily an operand resource, functioning only
them, distribute to them, occasionally as operand resource.
and promote to them. The
customer is an operand
Determination Value is determined by the Value is perceived and determined by the
and meaning of producer. It is embedded in consumer on the basis of “value in use”. Value
value the operand resource results from the beneficial application of
(goods) and is defined in operant resource sometimes transmitted through
terms of “exchange value.” operand resources. Firms can only make value
Firm-customer The customer is an operand The customer is primarily an operant resource.
interaction resource. Customers are Customers are active participants in relational
acted on to create exchanges and co-production.
transactions with resources.
Source of Wealth is obtained from Wealth is obtained through the application and
economic growth surplus tangible resources exchange of specialized knowledge and skills. It
and goods. Wealth consists represents the right to the future use of operant
of owning, controlling, and resources. The stakeholder perspective of the
producing operand firm defines wealth through the five different
resources. types of capital.
Table 1: Service-centered view of marketing (VARGO and LUSCH, 2004).
Dominant logics and disruptive technologies apparently evolve the same way. There is a
convergence of a stream of contributing technologies, methods, concepts and theories that
crystallize to form something new (DAY 2006; PEREZ, 2002; BENKLER, 2002;
BEINHOCKER, 2006). A service dominant logic implies that firms will increasingly compete
with customized solutions, realized through interactions and relationships, and involving the
customer as co-producer of the relational value that is created (URBAN, 1999;
VENKATRAMAN, 1998; COZER, 2006; DEIGHTON, 1996). “Sources of advantage are the
operant resources the firm deploys, comprising the assets such as network, patents, and facilities
that can be valued and traded, and capabilities that enable these assets to be deployed
advantageously” (DAY 2006).
Knowledge and Information Infrastructure
People exchange to acquire the benefits of specialized competences (knowledge and skills), or
services. Knowledge is an operant resource. It is the foundation of competitive advantage and
economic growth and the key to source of wealth (VARGO and LUSCH, 2004).
“The convergence of telecommunications and information technologies has created
unprecedented levels of connectivity – within companies, between businesses and supply chains,
between businesses and customers, and among consumers” (GRAYSON and HODGES, 2001).
We are witnessing a transition from an economy based on tangible goods to an economy driven
by information and service. It is the ability to generate, transform and distribute information that
ultimately enables firms to provide services to customers (RUST and THOMPSON, 2006). There
is an endless debate about the difference between data, information and knowledge (ALTER,
2002). Connecting People, Processes, and IT (information technology) for Business Results is a
more important issue than that controversy. Information includes codified and non-codified
information used and created as participants perform their work. Either type of information may
or may not be captured on a computer. Essentially, anything that can be digitized – encoded as a
stream of bits- is information. Information is costly to produce but cheap to reproduce. Nobel
prize-winning economist Herbert Simon spoke for us when he said, “a wealth of information
creates a poverty of attention.” This paper defines knowledge management as a conscious activity
of making and implementing decisions related to the acquisition, refinement, maintenance, and
use of information and knowledge. This definition bypasses the endless debate about the
difference between information and knowledge. Following Wilson (2002), it assumes that
anything that is made explicit enough to be managed must be expressed as some form of
information such as facts, concepts, beliefs, images, messages, formulas, and procedures
(ALTER, 2006). Finally, “information infrastructure is a shared, evolving, heterogeneous
installed base of IT capabilities among a set of user communities based on open and/or
standardized interfaces” (HANSETH and LYYTINEN, 2005).
One of the most important business impacts of such IT developments is the ability to provide
service over electronic networks (including Internet, wireless networks, ATMs, smart card
network). According to the service logic (enabled by information technology), the key unit of
analysis is the value of relationships between the firm and each individual customer (RUST,
2006). Economists say that production of an information good involves high fixed costs but low
marginal costs. But the costliness of information reproduction is the key to the costs of
transacting, which consists of the costs of measuring the valuable attributes of what is being
exchanged and the costs of protecting rights and policing and enforcing agreement. These
measurements and enforcement costs are the sources of social, political and economic institutions
(NORTH, 1990). Finally, customer equity is the total of discounted customer lifetime values
summed over all the firms current and potential customers (RUST, LEMON, ZEITHAML,
2004). “The service dominant logic is customer centric” (RUST, 2006).
Although knowledge has many aspects, and different communities interested in issues related to
organizational learning, innovation, or knowledge management focus on different aspects. The
simplest perspective of knowledge is found among members of Artificial Intelligence and
Knowledge Management communities, who see knowledge as being built up of different
elements that we can store in our brain or our computer (RUSSEL and NORVIG, 1995). Others,
still seeing knowledge as a cognitive material, describe this kind of knowledge as ‘explicit’ and
contrast it with ‘implicit’ or ‘tacit’ knowledge. Yet others, adopting a more phenomenological
perspective, see knowledge as deeply embodied and embedded into our body and our practices.
Further, knowledge may be seen as embedded into institutions and material structures like houses
and information systems. Knowledge is also shared by members of communities, such as
communities-of-practice or other social units (HANSETH, 2006). Knowledge is highly systemic.
Individual pieces are linked together in various ways into complex structures. These structural
characteristics play important roles in knowledge processes, such as knowledge construction,
diffusion, adoption- or whatever we call them. This paper will address the systemic/complexity
aspects of knowledge by looking at it as a network. This is underpinned by two fundamental
(a) Individual ‘pieces’ of knowledge are related and interdependent.
(b) Different individuals adopt the same ‘piece’ of knowledge, and that piece of knowledge is
embedded into routines and practices; accordingly, these individuals, routines, and practices are
linked together and become interdependent.
Considering knowledge as a network also implies that theories of ‘network economics’, also
known as ‘information economics’, should apply. Key concepts in these disciplines are: positive
feedback, network externalities, increasing returns, path-dependence, switching costs, and lock-in
(Shapiro and Varian 1999; BENKLER, 2002; BEINHOCKER, 2006; STIGLITZ, 2002). The
value of connecting to a network depends on the number of other people already connected to it.
When two or more firms compete for a market where there is strong positive feedback, only one
may emerge as the winner. Network externalities like this also leads to ‘increasing returns’: one
user’s adoption of a specific technology increases the value of that technology for those already
having adopted it, so the value of the technology as such increases as more users adopt it (Arthur
1996; Shapiro and Varian 1999). Externalities arise when one market participant affects others
without compensation being paid. The value of a network goes up as the square of the number of
users (Shapiro and Varian, 1999). To the extent that knowledge can be considered as a network,
knowledge creation and diffusion are also subject to path-dependent processes and lock-in
situations (HAX and WILDE II, 1999; COZER, 2006).
For example, consider a cluster of entrepreneurial firms as observed in Silicon Valley
(GRANOVETTER, 2005). Each firm is engaged in the development of a module product that
that is expected to constitute a part of a complex innovative product system like Google.com or
iPod. Aoki (2004) considers that example as a new mode for corporate governance.
Peter Drucker (1988) argues that the knowledge will be primarily at the bottom of the
information-based organization, in the mind of the specialists who do different work and direct
themselves. Being critical to the current state of marketing theory, Evert Gummesson advocates
that three variables – relationships, networks and interaction – should form the basis for future
marketing theory (GUMMESSON, 2006). “Relationships are important to everybody and
ubiquitous in private, professional, and commercial life. There is an affluence of synonyms –
contacts, ties, links, bonds, friends, acquaintances – that are part of everyday language. They link
people or organizations; they might be temporaring or sustaining. When relationships embrace
more than two people or organizations, complex patterns, and contextual dimensions will emerge
– networks. What happens between parties in the relationships is called interaction”
Measuring, developing and implementing marketing programs can be very complicated in a
Service-Based World. It is important for managers to consider the impact of their marketing
decisions on brand value. Three models of branding presented by Kevin Keller help guide
managerial efforts (KELLER, 2003):
1) Brand Positioning: Describes how to guide integrated marketing to maximize competitive advantages.
2) Brand Resonance: Describes how to create intense, actively loyal relationships with customers.
3) Brand Value Chain: Describes how to trace the value creation process to better understand the financial
impact of marketing expenditures and investments.
Excellence in marketing requires the organization to implement holistic marketing practices
(KOTLER and KELLER, 2005). Leading global brand consultancy, Interbrand, publish their
annual ranking of the Best Global Brands by brand value, report identifies the TOP 3 global
brands, Coca-Cola, Microsoft and IBM, with 2006 combined brand value of US$ 180 billions.
Intensive Culture: Dilemmas of Institutionalization
Software and hardware are inexorably linked. Indeed, they are a leading example of complements
(Brandenburger AND NALEBUFF, 1996). Neither software nor hardware is of much value
without each other; they are only valuable because they work together as a system.
How do real individuals live together in real societies in the real world? Jeffrey Alexander's
masterful work, The Civil Sphere, addresses this central paradox of modern life (ALEXANDER,
2006). Feelings for others--the solidarity that is ignored or underplayed by theories of power or
self-interest--Poverty is both a cause and a consequence of the failure to respect human rights:
both economic, social and cultural as well as political and civil. Muhammad Yunus and
Grameem Bank, 2006 Nobel Peace Prize, have shown that the poor and the marginalized are not
victims and survivors but agents of change (YUNUS, 1999).
Alexander (2006) wish to develop an approach to democratic social life that acknowledge the
role of solidarity and moral ideals, it must start from a more realistic conception of difficulties
and challenges faced by complex societies. “Self-interest and conflict will never give way before
some all-embracing republican or communal ideal. Indeed, the more democratic a society, the
more it allows groups to define their own specific ways to of life and legitimates the inevitable
conflicts of interests that arise among them” (ALEXANDER, 2006). Particular goals and even
the most strategic of actions are framed and sometimes bound by commitments to cultural codes
and corporate governance codes. Such references do inform foundational documents like the
American Declaration of Independence; French Declaration of the Rights of Man; and the UN
Earth Charter. The Earth Charter is now increasingly recognized as a global consensus statement
on the meaning of sustainability, the challenge and vision of sustainable development, and the
principles by which sustainable development is to be achieved.
Suggestions for Possible Research Agenda
Accordingly to Max Feffer, founder of Suzano Papel e Celulose, “in a world where everything
changes, good relations are the only enduring things. Good relations are those that do not break
because of any mistake of the parts or due to changes on the circumstances”.
“Demographic change, and its connection with the process of development, has a crucial bearing
on business operations, future growth, and profitability” (GRAYSON and HODGES, 2001).
Profit maximization is not in the vocabulary of service-dominant logic (VARGO, LUSCH and
MALTER, 2006). Service-dominant logic views marketing as an ongoing stream of social and
economic processes in which firms continually generate and test hypotheses. Firms learn from
financial outcomes as they attempt to better serve customers and obtain cash flows for the firm.
Service-dominant logic embraces market and customer orientation and a learning orientation
(DAY, 2006). It implies that just as individual and firm wellbeing are tied to societal wellbeing,
national wealth is tied to global wealth. Environmental (water services) and marketing
governance (markets, hybrids, hierarchies, bureaus, networks) are some suggestions for future
research. Changes in the atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases and aerosols, in solar
radiation and in land surface properties alter the energy balance of the climate system. These
changes are expressed in terms of radiative forcing, which is used to compare how a range of
human (bounded rationality), and natural factors drive warming or cooling influences on global
climate. Beyond Growth: the economy as an open subsystem of the ecosystem (DALY, 1996),
The Management of Sustainable Growth (CLEVELAND, 1981), The Economics of Governance
(WILLIAMSON, 2005), Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet (SACHS, 2008) and
Capitalism at Crossroads (HART, 2005) appears to be a good starting point for a possible
research agenda. “But the interrelationships which govern the mix of market and hierarchy, to use
Williamson's terms, are extremely complex and in our present state of ignorance it will not be
easy to discover what these factors are” (COASE, 1991).
ALDERSON, W. Marketing Behavior and Executive Action – A Functionalist Approach to Marketing Theory.
Homewood, Ill.: Richard D. Irwin, 1957.
ALEXANDER, J. The Civil Sphere. Oxford University Press, 2006.
ALLEN, F. GALE, D. A Comparative Theory of Corporate Governance. Working Paper,
Wharton School, 2002
ALTER, S. “The Work System Method for Understanding Information Systems and Information System Research,”
Communications of the AIS, 9(6), pp. 90-104, Sept. 2002.
ANDERSON, E. The Contrast Between Risk Assessment and Rules of Evidence in the Context of International
Trade …Risk Analysis, 2004
Aoki, M. The economic analysis of the Japanese firm. North-Holland, 1984.
ARTHUR, W.B. Increasing Returns and the New World of Business. Harvard Business Review. 74(4): 100-9,
AUGIER, M. MARCH, J. A model scholar: Herbert A. Simon (1916-2001). Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization, vol. 49, 2002.
Barzel,Y. 1997. Economic Analysis of Property Rights. Cambridge University Press.
BENKLER, Y. The Wealth of Networks. Yale University Press, 2006.
Blair, T. The Stakeholder Economy. Speech to the Singapore business community, 1996
BOWLES, S. GINTIS, H. The Revenge of Homo Economicus: Contested Exchange and the revival of political
economy. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 7, No 1, 1993.
BRANDENBURGER, A.; NELEBUFF, B. Co-opetition. HBSP. 1996.
Buysse,K. Verbeke, A. Proactive environmental strategies: a stakeholder management perspective .Strategic
Management Journal, 2003
Carley, K.Computational organization science: A new frontier , Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, Feb 2003
Clarkson, M. A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. The
Academy of Management Review, 1995
CLEVELAND, H. The Management of Sustainable Growth. Pergamon Press, 1981.
Coase,R.H. The Nature of the Firm, Economics s.n.4,386-405. 1937.
Coase,R.H. The Problem of Social Cost. Journal of Law and Economics 3. October:1-44. 1960.
Conner, K. Prahalad, C. K. A Resource-Based Theory of the Firm: Knowledge versus Opportunism .
Organization Science, Vol. 7, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 1996), pp. 477-501
COZER, M. O PROJETO DELTA SOB A PERSPECTIVA DO MARKETING ESTRATÉGICOUMA
ABORDAGEM EM AMBIENTE DE ECONOMIA DIGITAL. Dissertação de Mestrado, FEA-USP, 2006.
CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, M. Good Business. Hodder & Stoughton, 2003
DALY, H. Beyond Growth. The Economics of Sustainable Development. Beacon Press, Oxford,1996
DEIGHTON, J. The Future of Interactive Marketing. Harvard Business Review, novembro-dezembro, 1996.
Demsetz, H. Toward a Theory of Property Rights, American Economic Review 57, maio 1967, pp 347-373.
Demsetz,H. 1983. The Structure of Ownership and he Theory of the Firm. Journal of Law and Economics, vol
Donaldson, T. Preston, L. The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications.
The Academy of Management Review, 1995.
Drucker, P. The Coming of the New Organization. HBR, 1988
Dyer, J. Singh, H. The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive
Advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 1998
Eggerstsson, T. 1990. Economic Behavior and Institutions. Chaps 2, 4 and 5. Cambridge Surveys of Economic
Literature. Cambridge Univ. Press, 385 pp.
Friedman, M. Capitalism and freedom. University of Chicago Press, 1962
GRANOVETTER, Mark (2001) – “A theoretical agenda for economic sociology” Guillén, Mauro The New
Economic Sociology: Developments in an Emerging Field – New York, Russel Sage Foundation.
____________________ (1985), “Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness”. American
Journal of Sociology, 91:481-510.
Grandori, A. Corporate Governance and Firm Organization, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2004.
GRAYSON, D.HODGES, A. Everybody´s Business. London, FT, 2001.
Gummesson, E. Total Relationship Marketing. Rethinking Marketing Management: From 4Ps to 30Rs.
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1999.
HAMEL, G.; PRAHALAD, C. K. Competindo pelo Futuro. Ed. Campus, 1995.
HANSETH, O. LYYTINEN, K. Theorizing about the Design of Information Infrastructures: Design Kernel
Theories and Principles. Working Papers on Information Environments, 2005.
Harrison, J.S., Freeman, R.E. "Stakeholders, Social Responsibility and Performance: Empirical Evidence and
Theoretical Perspectives" Academy of Management Journal 42: 479-487. 1999.
Hart, S.L.; Beyond greening: Strategies for a Sustainable World. Harvard Business review 75(1): 66-76.
Cambridge, MA, USA, 1997.
HAX, A. C. e WILDE II, D. L. The Delta Model: Adaptive Management for a Changing World. Sloan
Management Review, Winter 1999.
Jones, T. Wicks, A. Convergent Stakeholder Theory. The Academy of Management Review, 1999.
KOTLER, P.; KELLER, K. L. Marketing Management. Nova York: Prentice Hall, 2005.
KELLER, K. Strategic brand management: building, measuring, and managing brand equity. Prentice Hall,
Kor, Y., Mahoney, J. 2005. How Dynamics, Management, and Governance of Resource Deployments Influence
Firm-Level Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26: 489-496
KUHN, T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, 1962.
MAHONEY, J. Towards a Stakeholder Theory of Strategic Management. Working Paper, 2006.
MORCK, R. The global history of corporate governance. Cambridge MA, National Bureau of Economic Research
Mowen, J.Minor, M. Consumer Behavior: A Framework. Prentice Hall, 2000.
NELSON, R. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press Cambridge
Nooteboom, B. Inter-firm collaboration, learning and networks; An integrated approach, London: Routledge,
NORTH, D. Institutions. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1991
Parrino, R. Weisbach, M. Measuring investment distortions arising from stockholder. Journal of Financial
PEREZ, C. Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital: The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages.
Edward Elgar. 2002.
RASKIN, P. BANURI, GALLOPIN, GUTMAN, HAMOND, KATES, SWART. Great Transition. Stockholm
Environment Institute, 2002
RUSSEL, S.; NORVIG, P. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall, 1995.
RUST, R. LEMON, K. ZEITHAML, V. Return on Marketing: Using Customer Equity to Focus Marketing
Strategy. Journal of Marketing, 2004.
SHAPIRO, C; VARIAN, H. Informations Rules. Harvard Business School Press. 1999.
Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Global Reporting Initiative. www.globalreporting.org. 2006
URBAN, G; SULTAN, F. Design and Evaluation of a Trust Based Advisor on the Internet. Sloan School
Working Paper 4035-98, MIT, julho, 1999.
Vargo, S. Lusch, R. Evolution to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 2004.
_______________ . The service-dominant logic of marketing: dialog, debate, and directions. ME Sharpe, 2006.
VENKATRAMAN, N. Real Strategies for Virtual Organizing. Sloan Management Review. Fall 1998.
Williamson,O.E. The Mechanisms of Governance. Oxford University Press. 429 pp. 1996.
YUNUS, M. Banker to the poor. PublicAffairs New York, 1999
ZADEK, S. Corporate Responsibility and the Competitive Advantage of Nations. AccountAbility, 2002