Collective-conflictual value co-creation: A strategic action field approach

Abstract

Drawing on the theory of strategic action fields, this article explores a collective–conflictual perspective on value co-creation. Following recent developments and calls for research with a holistic outlook, we review streams of research that discuss both collective and discordant elements in social relations and subsequently relate this to value co-creation. We outline a conceptual framework for value co-creation, focusing on collective action that includes various actors, interactions, practices, and outcomes. This article pioneers the underdeveloped collective–conflictual perspective on value co-creation. Our framework enables empirical research in value co-creation that accounts for multiple actors nested in fields of collective action.

Full text

Article
Collective–conflictual
value co-creation:
A strategic action
field approach
Mikko Laamanen
Hanken School of Economics, Finland
Per Ska
˚le
´n
Karlstad University, Sweden
Abstract
Drawing on the theory of strategic action fields, this article explores a collective–conflictual
perspective on value co-creation. Following recent developments and calls for research with a hol-
istic outlook, we review streams of research that discuss both collective and discordant elements
in social relations and subsequently relate this to value co-creation. We outline a conceptual
framework for value co-creation, focusing on collective action that includes various actors, inter-
actions, practices, and outcomes. This article pioneers the underdeveloped collective–conflictual
perspective on value co-creation. Our framework enables empirical research in value co-creation
that accounts for multiple actors nested in fields of collective action.
Keywords
Collective action, collective value, conflict, strategic action field, value co-creation
Introduction
Recent crucial developments in marketing theory have been structured around the notion of value
co-creation. Studies have predominantly approached value co-creation as interaction between two
actors on an individual level under the assumption of harmony and mutual benefit (e.g., Gro¨nroos
and Voima, 2013; Vargo and Lusch, 2004). While some research exists on collective value
co-creation, calls to articulate explicit frameworks are commonly made (Edvardsson et al., 2011,
Corresponding author:
Mikko Laamanen, Department of Marketing, Centre for Relationship Marketing and Service Management (CERS), Hanken
School of Economics, P.O. Box 479, (Arkadiankatu 22), Helsinki 00101, Finland.
Email: mikko.laamanen@hanken.fi
Marketing Theory
2015, Vol. 15(3) 381–400
ªThe Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1470593114564905
mtq.sagepub.com
by guest on August 21, 2015mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

2012; Spohrer et al., 2007; Vargo and Lusch, 2008). Further, occasional studies have addressed
destructive or opportunistic behavior by interacting parties in value co-creation (e.g. Echeverri and
Ska
˚le´n, 2011; Ertimur and Venkatesh, 2010; Ple´ and Chumpitaz Ca´ceres, 2010). In previous
research, collective–conflictual value co-creation has been treated implicitly in a piecemeal fash-
ion, despite ample empirical evidence of marketing interactions being characterized by conflict
between several actors. Thus, the aim of this article is to explicate a collective–conflictual perspec-
tive on value co-creation and generate a framework for empirical investigation thereof.
To elaborate our stance, we build on the scarce existing research on collective and conflictual
value co-creation and on theories of collective action, particularly Fligstein and McAdams’ (2011,
2012) theory of strategic action fields (SAFs). We understand collective action as undertaken by
people together to enhance their status and achieve some common objective. This literature facil-
itates an examination of value co-creation dynamics beyond economic activities and relational
dyads (cf. Spencer and Cova, 2012). As we will exemplify, theories of collective action are rele-
vant for understanding collective efforts that take issue with how value co-creation takes place in
contemporary marketing as well as the often uneasy relationships between consumers, providers,
and their context in various market relationships.
We contribute to marketing theory by treating value co-creation as a collective and discordant
practice. Distinctive hereto is conflict, which we consider along Simmelian (1955) lines as neither
positive nor negative per se but as inherent to the dynamics of human interaction. To this end, we
conceptualize an alternative to the dominant view, which holds that value is subjective and experi-
ential, and largely associates value co-creation with positive practices and outcomes. Examining
value co-creation as a collective and contested phenomenon hence suggests variety in practices and
outcomes. Our approach resonates with suggestions for marketing research to depart from indivi-
dualistic accounts to elaborate more holistic purviews (e.g. Askegaard and Linnet, 2011; Pen
˜aloza
and Venkatesh, 2006) and research on conflict in systems of value co-creation (Frow et al., 2014).
This article is structured as follows. First, we review theories of value co-creation in marketing
and their inherent assumptions focusing particularly on the scarce research on collective and con-
flictual value co-creation. Then, we examine sociology of collective action focusing on SAF the-
ory. The discussion section presents juxtapositions of this literature and exemplifies our conceptual
framework. We conclude with implications of collective–conflictual value co-creation for market-
ing theory and present avenues for future research.
Theories of value co-creation in marketing
Value and its creation have gained increased interest in marketing theory since the introduction of
service-dominant logic (SDL) (Vargo and Lusch, 2004). SDL’s basic assumptions are that value is co-
created, assessed in use, and is the outcome of activities and interactions in which resources are integrated
(Gro¨nroos, 2011; Gro¨ nroos and Voima, 2013; Gummerus, 2013; Vargo and Lusch, 2008). Value co-
creation is mostly understood as taking place in direct interactions between actors, usually customers and
firms and also their surroundings (e.g. Gro¨nroos, 2011; Gro¨ nroos and Voima, 2013; Heinonen et al.,
2010; Vargo and Lusch, 2008). But it is only in the customer’s use processes that value is realized,
thereby becoming subjective, experiential, and heterogeneous (Gro¨ nroos, 2011; Gummerus, 2013;
Vargo and Lusch, 2008). When value is understood as ‘‘always uniquely and phenomenologically
determined by the beneficiary’’ (Vargo and Lusch, 2008: 9), it implies that while value co-creation
processes can include multiple actors, value as an outcome is subjectively determined. Hence, providers
(e.g. firms) can never deliver value to customers. Rather, they offer value propositions, that is,
382 Marketing Theory 15(3)
by guest on August 21, 2015mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

configurations of resources, which customers may draw on to co-create value-in-use. Theories of
value co-creation emphasize that knowledge and skills are employed to operate on tangible and intangi-
ble resources to co-create value. Through this resource integration process, so the theory goes, the user
(and most often the provider too) becomes better off (Gro¨ nroos, 2011; Vargo and Lusch, 2008). Hence,
value co-creation is mainly presented as collaboration with ubiquitously positive outcomes.
However, a particular problem emerges. In collective contexts of social interaction, multiple
beneficiaries may want or determine different subjective value leading to conflict. We discuss this
in further detail below.
Collective perspectives on value co-creation
To account for the collective dimension of value co-creation, social systems and practice views
have emerged in academic marketing discourse. Vargo and Lusch (2008: 5) argue:
while we initially focused on exchange between two parties, we have increasingly tried to make it clear
that it needs to be understood that the venue of value [co-]creation is the value configurations—eco-
nomic and social actors within networks interacting and exchanging across and through networks.
Based on this understanding, a system perspective on service and value co-creation has devel-
oped. A service system is a ‘‘value-coproduction configuration of people, technology, other inter-
nal and external service systems, and shared ... languages, processes, metrics, prices, policies,
and laws’’ (Spohrer et al., 2007: 74), that is, dynamic configurations of resources that co-create
value by integrating and using resources inside the service system and across service systems
(Chandler and Vargo, 2011; Spohrer et al., 2007).
Edvardsson et al. (2011) contend that value co-creation and resource integration in service sys-
tems is not only a function of the actors’ agency but that service systems are formed in a wider
social reality referred to as value in social context. Social systems compromise the structures,
norms, and rules through which actors enact value co-creation roles (Edvardsson et al., 2012). This
view clearly conveys a collective understanding of value co-creation, yet the conceptualization is
rather abstract and hard to operationalize, a common critique of frameworks based on Giddens’
(1984) theory of structuration (e.g. den Hond et al., 2012; Fligstein and McAdam, 2011, 2012).
Practices then are the foundational elements of the social and sociality (Reckwitz, 2002;
Schatzki, 1996). Shove et al. (2012) delineate materials, competences, and meanings as the
building blocks of practices. These cover resources, understandings and skill, and mental activities,
such as emotion and motivations that create social and symbolic significance for participating in
practices. Schau et al. (2009) were the first to use practice theory to study value co-creation in mar-
keting research; additionally, Echeverri and Ska
˚le´n (2011), Fyrberg Yngfalk (2013), and Korkman
(2006; also Korkman et al., 2010) have also utilized practice theory.
There is a clear collective intersubjective element to practices. Schau et al. (2009: 35, emphasis
added) argue that brand community value co-creation practices ‘‘work closely together as a process
of collective value co-creation.’’ Echeverri and Ska
˚le´n (2011) emphasize further the collective
dimension of practices arguing that value is co-created when firms and consumers enact practices
congruently. Accordingly, practices need to be collectively shared for value co-creation to transpire.
Conflictual value co-creation
Studies of collective value co-creation have added to the theory on value co-creation. However,
previous value co-creation research provides few explicit concepts and frameworks to study
Laamanen and Ska
˚le
´n383
by guest on August 21, 2015mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

conflictual value co-creation (see Frow et al., 2014). This is not to say that SDL negates the pos-
sibility of negative value co-creation processes and outcomes, but it’s not untilrecently that some
researchers have started to investigate the ‘‘dark side’’ of value co-creation through value co-
destruction, consumer exploitation, and similar phenomena (Bonsu and Darmody, 2009; Corvel-
lec and Hultman, 2014; Cova and Dalli, 2009; Cova et al., 2015; Echeverri and Ska
˚le´n, 2011;
Ertimur and Venkatesh, 2010; Ple´ and Chumpitaz Ca´ ceres, 2010; Zwick et al., 2008).
From a practice theoretical standpoint, Echeverri and Ska
˚le´n (2011) argue that when actors
enact practices incongruently, value co-destruction ensues meaning that value-in-use diminishes
for the interacting actors. Reasons for co-destruction may range from opportunistic behavior
(Ertimur and Venkatesh, 2010) to abuse by one or several of the interacting parties (Echeverri
and Ska
˚le´n, 2011). In either case of value co-destruction, actors can be seen to draw on different
‘‘institutionalized ways of assessing and communicating value’’ (Corvellec and Hultman, 2014:
5), that is, regimes of value.
Cova and Dalli (2009) elaborate a conflictual view on value co-creation by drawing on Marx’s
labor process theory. They perceive customers’ input to value co-creation as consumer work—a
form of exploitation. Their notion of double exploitation explains a particular type of mistreatment
correlated with value co-creation where the customers are:
not generally paid [for their contribution, but] ... typically pay ... a ‘price premium’ for the fruits of
their labour, as the use value provided by co-created commodities is said to be higher than that [of] ...
standardized production’s rationalized systems. (Cova and Dalli, 2009: 327)
In a similar vein, Bonsu and Darmody (2008) argue that co-creation functions as a strategic
technology of market control in the guise of consumer empowerment. The responsibility for
resource employment is effectively transferred to consumers, while the firm recaptures the fruits
from unpaid consumer labor and transforms it into revenue (see also Zwick et al., 2008).
Thus, value co-creation becomes a contested space of various actors and practices (cf. Fyrberg
Yngfalk, 2013; Varman et al., 2012), and marketing acts as a technology of accountability between
organizations and their constituents—disconnection between the actors results in conflict (Kotler
and Levy, 1969). Evidently, beyond collaboration, forms of interaction can include opposition, co-
optation, opportunism, coercion, and even violence. Following Simmel (1955), such conflict is,
however, inherently neither positive nor negative but a dynamic and perpetual characteristic of
human interaction and social organization. Conflict animates innovation and creativity and hinders
ossification of social systems (Coser, 1957).
Despite the fact that research in value co-creation has made advances along various avenues,
the particularities of collective–conflictual value co-creation processes and their outcomes are
yet to be studied using a systematic approach that considers various actors, disparate goals,
and power relations. Drawing on the concept of collective action and particularly Fligstein and
McAdams’ (2011, 2012; also McAdam and Scott, 2005) SAF theory, we outline a conceptual
framework for studying collective–conflictual value co-creation to contribute to current theo-
rizations in marketing.
The nature of collective action in SAFs
Collective endeavors are fundamental to human beings and human interaction. From a sociological
standpoint, collective action can be defined as consisting of:
384 Marketing Theory 15(3)
by guest on August 21, 2015mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

any goal-directed [either institutionally sanctioned or illicit] activity engaged in jointly by two or more
individuals ... [entailing] the pursuit of a common objective through joint action—that is, people
working together in some fashion for a variety of reasons, often including the belief that doing so
enhances the prospect of achieving the objective. (Snow et al., 2004: 6)
The particular theory of collective action we draw upon here to elaborate collective–conflictual
value co-creation, SAF theory (Fligstein and McAdam, 2012), focuses on how people engender
collective action and how interactions between various social actors induce stability and change
in various social arenas or fields.
SAF theory contextualizes collective action to fields of strategic action consisting of incumbent
actors in dominant positions, their challengers as well as governing authorities and other connected
fields. The actors engage in role-dependent social practices aiming at maintaining or challenging
the field order. These social practices are dependent on incumbents’ and challengers’ social skill to
(re)constitute and (re)negotiate the field order as well as their resources and support from other
actors, such as publics and authorities. Beyond SAFs internal dynamics, external shocks can desta-
bilize a particular SAF and offer possibility to renegotiate resources and relational dynamics
(Fligstein and McAdam, 2012). SAF theory expands the traditional materialistic view of collec-
tive action (Olson, 1971) to include existential interests. Existential interests relate to meaning
making and identity creation whereby socially skilled individual actors transcend their individual
goals and perceptions of benefit to appeal to and engage with others and secure their support or coop-
eration in maintaining or changing a particular field.
Such existential interests are not only relevant to marketing but central to studies of collective
action in social movements. Snow and his co-authors (2004: 3) define social movements as:
one of the principal social forms through which collectivises give voice to their grievances and concerns
about the rights, welfare,and well-being of themselves and othersby engaging in varioustypes of collective
action ... that dramatize those grievances and concerns and demand that something be done about them.
Collective action is inherently connected to power, conflict, and domination in a given context.
We elaborate this in SAF theory next.
Strategic action fields
An SAF is:
a constructed mesolevel social order in which actors (who can be individual or collective) are attuned to
and interact with one another on the basis of shared (which is not to say consensual) understandings
about the purposes of the field, relationships to others in the field (including who has power and why),
and the rules of governing legitimate action in the field. (Fligstein and McAdam, 2012: 9; see also
Zeitz, 1980)
An SAF may be an organization, a brand community, a municipality, a social movement, or any
other social collective nested in an environment made up of other SAFs providing the focal SAF and
its actors with resources and governance structures. That SAFs are intertwined and interdependent
implies that transformation of a stable field may be triggered by episodes of contention (Fligstein
and McAdam, 2012; McAdam and Scott, 2005). Episodes of contention ensue from external shocks
or are born out of field–internal dynamics and involve challengers aiming to reconstitute the field
order and incumbents to protect the extant rules and power structures. Contention eventually leads
Laamanen and Ska
˚le
´n385
by guest on August 21, 2015mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

to settlement—a renegotiated order between the field actors, the reconstitution of the logic of the
field, and relationship of the field to its environment (Fligstein and McAdam, 2012).
Figure 1 depicts the constitution of an SAF and how it relates to its environment. Central to the
field is the recursive nature of stability and conflict portrayed in the middle. The circularity is based
on the disparity between the practices relating to domination and contestation that are foundational
to the roles and goals of the incumbents and challengers, respectively. As actions don’t take place
in a social vacuum (cf. Rucht, 2004), interactions within and without the field in question are
significant. Environments for collective action are comprised of actors who are not necessarily
participating, but in some manner impact the dynamics and course of action in the field (McAdam
and Scott, 2005). Depending on perspective and discursive convention, the environments as
contextual embedding of collective action can be referred to as organizations, industries, sectors,
networks, systems, markets, or societies. In the following section, we call attention to the chal-
lengers as the missing categorization in the value co-creation literature.
Challengers in SAFs
The fact that SAF actors have a common understanding about the purposes and rules of the field
doesn’t imply agreement on a field’s constitution. Rather, continuous contention and conflicts
between incumbents and challengers, where the dominant ‘‘must always contend with the resis-
tance, the claims, the contention, ‘political’, or otherwise, of the dominated’’ (Bourdieu and
Wacquant, 1992: 102), is characteristic to SAFs.
Challengers construct value co-creation around grievances as causesfor contesting the incumbents’
dominance of the SAF. These grievances can be factual, perceived, or even manipulated (Buechler,
2011; Snow and Soule, 2010); most important is how they are mobilized. Much of the mobilization
effort is framing (e.g. Snow, 2004; Snow and Byrd, 2007; Snow and Soule, 2010), wherebySAF actors
Incumbents Challengers
Authorities
Publics
Other SAFs
Governance
E
nvironment
Domination
Contestation
Stability Conflict
Figure 1. Strategic action field and environment of collective action.
386 Marketing Theory 15(3)
by guest on August 21, 2015mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

continuously engage existential interests through practices of meaning production and maintenance.
Seen as a conflictof competing claims aboutaspects of reality, framing representsthe practice of social
construction of issues in an interplay of incumbents, challengers, and the environments (Fligstein and
McAdam, 2012; McCammon et al., 2007; Snow, 2004; Snow and Soule, 2010).
Framing is an agentic endeavor of connecting with and manipulating political, cultural, and
economic discursive fields: ‘‘frames and the political and cultural environment in which they are
expressed work in combination to produce a movement’s desired political outcome’’ (McCammon
et al., 2007: 726, emphasis original). Salience of a frame is derived from tapping into the hege-
monic discourses within the discursive field and thereby the success of a frame is connected to
larger cultural references, such as values, beliefs, and ideologies (McCammon et al., 2007; Snow,
2004; Snow and Byrd, 2007). Framing as the mobilization of cultural resources further connects to
mobilizing various other resources. Fligstein and McAdam (2012) see field stability produced
largely through successful access, accrual, and application of these resources. Where incumbents
are positioned to survive due to the material, cultural, and political resources at their disposal
(Fligstein and McAdam, 2012), challengers ‘‘face the problem of adapting their strategies and
tactics to changing environments, as the context in which they operate may become more or less
favorable’’ (Della Porta and Diani, 2006: 19)
Challengers might not attempt to confront a resource-rich incumbent directly but by harnessing
various media and publics to provide moral and material resources to their causes (cf. Rucht, 2004;
Buechler, 2011; Zeitz, 1980) and attending to societal governance structures for political opportu-
nities and support. For instance, as SAF actors draw on cultural resources to frame their struggles,
they also nurture the creation of a collective identity and mobilize sympathies and material
resources from their environments (Della Porta and Diani, 2006; Fligstein and McAdam, 2012;
Snow and Soule, 2010). When the social skill of incumbents and challengers is roughly equal,
successful mobilization rests on the ability to innovatively maneuver frames and collective iden-
tities by figuring out ‘‘how either get the ‘other’ to cooperate or to effectively blunt or counter the
‘other’s’ advantage’’ (Fligstein and McAdam, 2012: 55). This translates not only to cooperation
but to the possibility of conflict on several distinct levels, namely, between field actors and fields
as well as translates to variance in outcome, which we consider next.
Outcomes of collective action
Due to the plurality of practitioners, it is often difficult to connect collective action practices and
outcomes. For collective action in social movements, Snow and Soule (2010) characterize out-
comes as having intended–unintended and internal–external consequences. We consider this
division generally applicable for SAF. The intended–unintended dichotomy corresponds to a
positive–negative outcome trajectory, whereas the location of the effect is either within or beyond
the boundaries of the SAF.
The internal–intended dimension includes personal transformation, interpersonal solidarity, and
collective identity. On an organizational level, positive outcomes translate to sustained membership,
commitment, and loyalty. Internal–unintended consequences relate to internal conflict, such as
disagreements on strategies and tactics. Intergroup, leadership, and organizational dynamics may
lead to strains to collective unity and impact the internal dynamics of the group; for instance, disputes
about the use of particular ideas, framing issues, and ideological direction can impact the collectivity
in unforeseeable ways. Further, individual actors may engage in nonproductive activities. According
to Olson (1971), while any group will act toward some collective benefit, individuals won’t advance
Laamanen and Ska
˚le
´n387
by guest on August 21, 2015mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

common objectives, if benefits can be obtained without involvement (the free rider reasoning) and
unless coercion (e.g. rules, regulations, or violence) or selective incentive is concomitantly present
(Olson, 1971).
A positive response from an authority, opponent, or audience translates into an intended external
outcome. Basically, the majority of the goals set by groups engaging in collective action are aimed
toward externally intended consequences. Although most collective action is intended to change
policies and influence authorities, they also target economic actors (e.g. through boycotts, see King,
2011; Kozinets and Handelman, 2004), the public (e.g. through raising awareness, interest, or
solidarity toward societal issues and problems, see Fantasia, 1988), or cultural understandings
(e.g. in alternative lifestyles, see Haenfler et al., 2012). Externally intended consequences are also
decisive in attracting resources and maintaining resource-supplying relationships. Externally unin-
tended consequences are often forms of competition and opposition that can take shape in resource
rivalry, counteraction, or inattentive authorities. Conflicts have a material dimension connected to
availability of resources (Buechler, 2011; Snow and Soule, 2010) but also a symbolic dimension
related to differentiation (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992; Rucht, 2004).
Ultimately SAF actors in general, but challengers in particular, rarely succeed in reaching and
satisfying their goals in totality (McAdam and Scott, 2005; Snow and Soule, 2010). Due to the
dynamics of strategic collective action, temporalities of this action, and the domestication of
contention, collective goals become ‘‘transformed as they are translated, and today’s ‘victories’
give rise to tomorrow’s disappointments, provocations, and—eventually—to new reform efforts’’
(McAdam and Scott, 2005: 40). This represents the paradox of conflictual–collective action.
Collective action begets counteraction. More fundamentally, by attaining its goals, the collective is
rendered obsolete, whereas not attaining these fails to satisfy its constituents. Thus, conflict
remains perpetual. This is what we describe in the next section where we conceptualize collective–
conflictual value co-creation based on and conjoining the theories discussed thus far.
Conceptualizing collective–conflictual value co-creation
Social systems change and avoid ossification through conflict and innovative collective action.
Both are continuous, malleable, and constrained by social structures and resource inequalities.
Accordingly, Zeitz (1980: 73) contends that ‘‘social action seems to be both active and self-
determining, and yet also passive and constrained.’’ Following Fligstein and McAdam (2011,
2012), our interest is in the makeup, interaction and outcomes in a value co-creating field and the
transformation of social reality. In this way, SAF theory helps us elaborate collective–conflictual
value co-creation by placing discordant relationship between incumbents and challengers central
to analysis. Fligstein and McAdam argue:
if a field is really an arena in which individuals, groups, or organizations face off to capture some gain
[i.e. value] ... then the underlying logic of fields is not encoded in the structure of the network but in
the cultural conceptions of power, privilege, resources, rules, and so on that shape action within the
strategic action field. (2012: 30)
Subsequently, we build on SAF theory to elaborate a framework of collective–conflictual value
co-creation in which actors, interactions, practices, and outcomes are the key interrelating compo-
nents. We further establish the relevance of the emergent framework by means of examples from
recent theorizing and practice in marketing and management literature.
388 Marketing Theory 15(3)
by guest on August 21, 2015mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Actors
Previous research conceptualizes the impact of the social context on the value co-creation activities
in various ways. One relevant stream is service systems representing configuration of actors and
resources in which value co-creation are to be embedded. Edvardsson et al. (2012) suggest that
actors’ practices in service systems are an effect of both social structures (e.g. power, norms, cog-
nitive schemes, etc.) and actors’ reflexive agency based on their free will. However, the abstract
nature of this conceptualization makes it hard for empirical research to analyze actor’s agency
(why actors conduct value co-creation the way they do) or to analyze the conflict–power issues,
such as structures of domination.
In line with some previous research on the collective nature of value co-creation (Edvardsson
et al., 2011, 2012; Heinonen et al., 2010; Schau et al., 2009) and politics of value regimes
(Corvellec and Hultman, 2014), SAF theory advocates viewing actors and value co-creation prac-
tices in social context. Uniquely, SAF theory divides actors into incumbents and challengers based
on their positions of field dominance thereby making collaboration and conflict between actors key
to the analysis (cf. van Wijk et al., 2013). According to Fligstein and McAdam (2012), the incum-
bents exercise disproportionate influence reflected to the dominant social order of the field. Chal-
lengers on the other hand have an alternative vision of the field. Due to their subordinate position,
challengers often use extra-institutional means to challenge the power of the incumbents (Fligstein
and McAdam, 2012).
While not utilizing an SAF conceptualization, several recent studies point toward the usefulness
of perceiving collective value co-creation as a conflict between incumbents and challengers. Cova
et al.’s (2015) study of the value co-creation orchestrated by Alfa Romeo with its consumer com-
munities is characterized by conflict. The firm taking an incumbent role strives to integrate the
Alfa Romeo brand more with the Fiat group that owns the brand. The consumers challenged this
project wanting to preserve the independence of the Alfa Romeo brand. Corvellec and Hultman
(2014) focus on the politics of value from an SDL perspective in waste management. By drawing
on Appadurai’s notion regimes of value, they point to the discrepancy between various frameworks
of valuation in a given social setting. They show that actors within a social context, such as a service
system, draw on various regimes of value as ‘‘expressed understandings of what matters as
opposed to what does not’’ (Corvellec and Hultman, 2014: 5). Their study on how waste man-
agement service providers need to navigate various value propositions based on practical,
political, economic, and environmental considerations of various actors could be reinterpreted
as exhibiting conflict between the collective understandings of incumbents and challengers
and their environments.
Likewise, the shift of music distribution from CDs to Internet-based streaming services
(Giesler, 2008), and the appropriation of academic work by publishing houses (Parker et al.,
2014) exemplify the usefulness of not only looking at conflictual regimes of value but discordant
practices of value co-creation. Both cases suggest that the respective markets are far from free of
conflict. Several actors take on incumbent, challenger, and authority roles—including consumer
activist groups, academic workers, record companies, publishing houses, nongovernmental orga-
nizations, public institutions, and even political parties—and are involved in fierce disagreement.
In the music industry, the dispute revolves around the external shock of digital technology as the
new way of distributing music; it has various meanings—collective appropriation of intellectual
property by consumers versus freedom to access the cultural products of humanity—and how inter-
actions should be structured in practice.
Laamanen and Ska
˚le
´n389
by guest on August 21, 2015mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

The persistent conflict between challengers and incumbents explains agency. Incumbents, often
supported by authorities, act to protect the social order of the field that defends their dominant
position. Challengers are driven to improve their subjugated position in the field by replacing that
order. Informed by SAF theory value co-creation processes or parts of such processes emerge as a
conflict between incumbents and challengers laboring to realize their respective interests; thus,
SAF theory provides an answer to why actors conduct value co-creation as they do.
In marketing relationships, cases like voluntary simplification, alternative production, and
sharing systems, such as guerrilla gardening, local currencies, and illegal torrent sharing, or
consumer activism, for example, adbusting exemplify collective activities of value co-creation. An
SAF theory-informed conceptualization of value co-creation has clear implications for reimagin-
ing the relationship between providers and consumers—dominant articulations of value co-
creation and service relationships perceive these as harmonious and mutual beneficial (Gro¨nroos,
2011; Gro¨nroos and Voima, 2013).
Interactions
Generally held conceptualizations of value co-creation are based on an assumption of mutual ben-
efit embodied in value-in-use and emergent in interaction mediated by the social context (Chandler
and Vargo, 2011; Edvardsson et al., 2011; Gro¨nroos, 2011; Vargo and Lusch, 2004, 2008). This
understanding of interactions suggests a consensual logic of value co-creation since it assumes
mutual facility and a disposition among actors to integrate resources (e.g. Gro¨ nroos, 2011; Vargo
and Lusch, 2008).
The consensual view can be considered an effect of the influence of classical exchange theory
and its implications for both the efficiency and distributive justice in exchange. As Zeitz (1980: 81)
elaborates, exchange doesn’t equal total benefit, may be less than voluntary and prone to the
influence of power disparities leading to ‘‘systems of voluntary and equal exchange [becoming]
systems of domination and even exploitation.’’ As such facility and disposition to resource inte-
gration can be contrasted with the voluntariness or possibility to do so, for instance, due to coercion
in interaction, or relating to unattainability or lack of resources respectively (see Gilbert, 2014;
Olson, 1971; Zeitz, 1980). Conflictual interaction in the application of resources is not haphazard
but intrinsic thereto and follows certain divergent goals of actors (Zeitz, 1980).
The conflictual logic of extraction assumes that the dominant actor attempts to extract value in
the relationship via exchange value. Critical studies informed by Marx have viewed value co-
creating interactions as providers exploiting the ‘‘working consumers’’ and thus as a labor mechan-
ism in the production of surplus value (Cova and Dalli, 2009; Zwick et al., 2008). While the SAF
theory approach is in accordance with the argument of these critical approaches that power is
skewed toward the provider, it also acknowledges that the relationship between the actors may
look very different depending on the organization of the field in question. Thus, SAF theory allows
for examining rifts in value co-creation. Empirical analysis can consider how consumers restruc-
ture the field so that it is in better accord with realizing their interest. Consumer movements toward
better food quality, responsible production of goods and services, and equal access to markets are
examples of actors geared toward accomplishing such transformations to the status quo, often by
seeking support from the authorities and value systems (see e.g. van Wijk et al., 2013). For exam-
ple, Varman and Belk (2009) study how a challenger, a local anticonsumption movement in Uttar
Pradesh, India, protests against an incumbent, the Coca-Cola Company. The protest centers on the
difficulties caused to farmers as one of the Coca-Cola Company’s factories drains local water
390 Marketing Theory 15(3)
by guest on August 21, 2015mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

reserves. The conflict may be seen as one between the value co-creation process of the farmers, and
the Coca-Cola Company, even though not analyzed in these terms by Varman and Belk. Neverthe-
less, the challenger mobilizes authorities and brings together a disparate set of actors in the move-
ment by connecting their claims to the nationalist ideology of swadeshi that historically is the
discourse of resistance to economic draining of local communities by imperialist forces.
Our SAF theory-informed framework is also relevant to the emerging research field of trans-
formative service research. In this context, Anderson et al. (2013: 1204) present a model depict-
ing interactions between providers and consumers of service and how these are embedded in
larger environments. The authors argue that service co-creation in interaction is particularly per-
tinent for influencing both the emotional and physical well-being of consumers. Problems of
well-being arise from service relationships being largely inequitable for ‘‘consumers often lack a
degree of control and agency within service contexts’’ (Anderson et al., 2013: 1204, emphasis added).
This situation has inspiredconsumers to take on challenger roles. Forinstance, the disinterest of service
providers in undesirable marketplaces and the failure and subsequent privatization of state-provided
public service have led to consumer innovation through alternative marketplacesand local distribution
systems.
The environment also intervenes in interactions, as SAF theory suggests. State actors commonly
regulate the functioning of market actors and increasingly govern everyday acts and practices of
consumption in efforts to safeguard the consumer. These governing acts are articulated in con-
sumer policy and the measures regulate and govern both the image of the consumer and everyday
consumption practices (Wahlen, 2009). Furthermore, auxiliary societal actors such as political
parties, labor unions, and other interest groups campaign toward ameliorating provision and dis-
tribution of goods, services, and wealth in various societal setting. Thus, the agency and capacity of
consumers and their representatives to take over aspects of their everyday lives is often born out of
necessity and independent of providers of service.
Practices
Practices and practice theory can explain how value co-creation takes place in routine activities
(see Echeverri and Ska
˚le´n, 2011; Gro¨nroos, 2011; Schau et al., 2009). Following Echeverri and
Ska
˚le´n (2011), we argue that harmonious value co-creation is a function of actors enacting prac-
tices congruently, while conflictual value co-creation suggests actors enacting practices incongru-
ently. Drawing on SAF theory, we elaborate their understanding by introducing a distinction
between collaborative and contentious value co-creation practices.
Collaborative practices are characterized by being collectively agreed upon; Schau et al. (2009)
report such practices in a brand community context. Certainly, agreement on practices is required for a
community to work together. Authorities work to ensure the functioning of a field according to a set of
dominant and legitimized ideas, morals, and values further influencing practice repertoires (Fligstein
and McAdam, 2012). Echeverri and Ska
˚le´n (2011) argue that conflictual value co-creation is an affect
of incongruent enactment of practices. We argue that some categories of value co-creation practices
always prompt conflict. For instance, withholding, withdrawing, or turning resources to work against
field convention represent collective–conflictual practices. These practices are connected to some
essential resource and grounded in a shared understanding—an ideological justification frame of a
value regime—that entices collective action.
Domination as practice takes place in a cycle of contentious action, counteraction, and com-
promise where settlements reconfigure power relationships in the field. In the mainstream
Laamanen and Ska
˚le
´n391
by guest on August 21, 2015mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

understanding of value co-creation, such a settlement is represented by the degree of value-in-use
that leads to continuation of a particular relationship. In our proposed conceptualization, stability is
an interim stage in a continuous cycle of relational friction ultimately due to the power differences
between the incumbents and challengers. From this perspective, we conceive inherent problems
with the harmonious views of value co-creation interactions, practices, and their subsequent out-
comes. First, both the denotative and the connotative meaning of value as something desirable and
valuable has taken an ontological headlock of the research community. Departing with the indivi-
dualistic perspective can demonstrate value co-creating interactions, as far from being in par, har-
monious and uniformly favorable undertakings.
Second, and more importantly to the current article, the fascination with subjective–experiential
aspects of value co-creation is insufficient in elaborating the phenomenon from a larger perspec-
tive. Actors are hardly disconnected from others in their activities. This is presented in the market-
ing literature to some extent in terms of social consensus (Edvardsson et al., 2011) and social
positioning (Pen
˜aloza and Venkatesh, 2006).
Our proposed collective–conflictual perspective points us toward contentious collective value
co-creation practices. By introducing incumbent and challengers and the conflict between them as
key to value co-creation, SAF theory provides additional opportunities to define and analyze con-
tentious value co-creation practices. Such a definition of practice rests firmly in the understanding
of collective actors challenging (or defending) some form of institutionalized power and authority
through contentious strategies and tactics aiming at resettling the field on a more equitable basis.
The difference to understanding conflictual value co-creation as incongruent enactment of prac-
tices (Echeverri and Ska
˚le´n, 2011) is that beyond disagreement and mismatching in the enactment
of practice, the actors consciously and actively draw on contentious practices in an attempt to
supersede and offset each other’s practice repertoires.
Cova et al.’ (2015) study of collective value co-creation within a collaborative marketing pro-
gram organized by Alfa Romeo could be read in such a way that the involved consumer commu-
nities challenge Alfa Romeo by focusing on practice repertoires outside of the scope of the
program. The contentious consumer initiated value co-creation practice attempts to outweigh the
provider-initiated practices focused on branding issues by promoting practices that have to do with
technological issues, such as the type of wheel traction. These practices are based on regimes of
value (Corvellec and Hultman, 2014) that find expression through frames of collective action that
spell out what matters to the collectivity and why.
Outcomes
Typically, the value co-creation literature considers value outcomes as experiential and subjec-
tively determined in use (e.g. Gro¨nroos, 2011; Vargo and Lusch, 2008; for a review, see Gum-
merus, 2013). Any conflict would relate to the perceived and experienced value, that is, the
(non)fulfillment of the provider’s value proposition in customer’s value-in-use. The settlement
of this conflict materializes in (dis)satisfaction and (dis)loyalty depending on who benefits from
the outcome (cf. service encounter literature, e.g. Bitner et al., 1990). Following the consensual
logic, collective value co-creation result in communally agreed upon value-in-use. To Edvardsson
et al. (2011: 333–334), social structures impact value-in-use and the value-in-social-context
becomes an effect of social consensus where subjective experience of value is in part influenced
by collective and intersubjective dimensions relating to the social construction of value. Their
interpretation of social constructionism doesn’t leave much space for conflict implying that value
392 Marketing Theory 15(3)
by guest on August 21, 2015mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

co-creation in any collective such as a brand community will result in consensus due to the com-
mon norms and values of collectives.
From a conflictual perspective, collective value can never be fully attained due to the logic of
domination, compromise, and the contested nature of the value co-creation process (cf. McAdam
and Scott, 2005). With value negotiated along various actors and influences in a system (Corvellec
and Hultman, 2014; van Wijk et al., 2013), the romantics of the positive effects of value co-
creation to all stakeholders (e.g. Lusch and Webster, 2011) become contested. Although Snow and
Soule (2010) have shown that exploitation, injustice, deprivation, dissatisfaction, or frustration
isn’t always substantial enough to result in antagonistic collective action, neither does it afford the
conclusion that value co-creation is always mutually beneficial. For example, the changes in the
music distribution market studied by Giesler (2008) suggest no conflict resolution; rather the rela-
tionship between incumbents and challengers can be settled for the present with conflict neverthe-
less enduring. Van Wijk et al. (2013) describe the establishment of sustainable tourism in the
Netherlands as mutual co-optation where in the process of field contestation the radical nature
of activists’ value proposition is diluted to fit the fields’ dominant perspective thereby increasing
its attractiveness to the tourism industry—thus value is arbitrated (Corvellec and Hultman, 2014).
Our conflictual perspective is corroborated by Corvellec and Hultman (2014) who view value
propositions standing for political activity inasmuch as value propositions represent dominant
ideologies and particular interests are a product of a particular social order and have consequences
to the wider environment—a conflict between incumbents, challengers, and the environment in our
terminology. Seeing value co-creation as a contested phenomenon grants it impact beyond the
focal field of actors and considers impact on the host societies (Scott, 2004). These views have yet
to be integrated en masse into theorizations of value co-creation.
Examining value co-creation from a conflictual perspective can open avenues to further theorize
cases where value co-creation has spillover effects on their environments. Such an analysis can for
instance take on religious, ideological, or political groups that aim to change the cultural and market
hegemonies in some way. For instance, the value co-creating activities of the Occupy movement,
voluntary simplifiers, the green movement, or the slow food crowd challenge the long-held ideas
about corporate activities, the work ethics, excessive consumption and consumerism, and nutrition,
respectively (Haenfler et al., 2012). Consequently, their value co-creating practices can have adverse
impacts on particular actors (such as multinational corporations), dominant ideologies (e.g. those per-
taining to economic growth and the consumer society), or established and accepted social practices
(e.g. related to food and nutrition). In effect, the value co-creating practices of these challengers may
not reap mutual or universal benefits where they reconstruct various fields in the society.
Taking the perspective of the field dominants and challengers in their social context, collective
action can have different outcomes to each of these.One or more actor or the larger social environment
can become recipients of neutral or negative effects. Strategic collective action is used to equilibrate
or distribute negative effects in efforts to achieve stability. Thus, we can ask whether or not value co-
creation is always a compromise (cf. Cova et al., 2015), both in process and in outcome.
Summary of framework
We theorize collective–conflictual value co-creation to depend on structural aspects (endogenous
and exogenous influences) but also in agentic endeavors of the actors consequently transforming
the actors and their social surroundings. Table 1 (below) summarizes the SAF theory-based con-
ceptual framework of collective–conflictual value co-creation and grounds it in applicable
Laamanen and Ska
˚le
´n393
by guest on August 21, 2015mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

previous research that has discussed the collective and conflictual elements of our framework with-
out, however, drawing on SAF theory.
Stability, which is ‘‘the hard fought and fragile state of affairs ... an agreement negotiated
primarily by the efforts of field dominants (and their internal and external allies) to preserve a
status quo that generally serves their interests’’ (McAdam and Scott, 2005:18), is shaken by
conflicts that agitate action, mobilization, and the social imagination (cf. Coser, 1957) of the
Table 1. Conceptual framework of collective–conflictual value co-creation.
Components Key concepts Implications to value co-creation
Relevant previous
research
Actors Incumbents Incumbent and challenger groups engage in
strategic collective action in a social
context of SAFs and their environment.
Conflictual value co-creation ensues
collectivities’ disparate regimes of value
and goals. Authorities, governance
structures, publics, and other SAFs
provide support (e.g. legitimacy and
resources) as well as external shocks
to value co-creation practices.
Corvellec and Hultman
(2014), Giesler
(2008), Varman and
Belk (2009), and van
Wijk et al. (2013)
Challengers
Authorities
Governance structures
Publics
Field–environment
Interactions Unequal power
relations
Interactions are based on varying regimes
of value. Power differences reify in
domination and contestation.
Corvellec and Hultman
(2014), Cova and
Dalli (2009), Cova
et al. (2015), Varman
and Belk (2009), and
Zwick et al. (2008)
Domination–
contestation
Practices Collaborative–
contentious practice
repertoires
Collectives draw on resources,
understandings, and meanings to frame
and mobilize support and activities that
maintain or challenge the status quo.
Collective action practices prompt
conflict that offsets cycles of contentious
action and counteraction. Conflict is an
effect of actors enacting practices
incongruently or actors invoking
contentious value co-creation practices.
den Hond and de
Bakker (2007),
Echeverri and Ska
˚le
´n
(2011), and Schau
et al. (2009)
Congruent/incongruent
enactment
Collective action
Outcomes Positive–negative Outcomes have implications on collective
and systemic levels and can have positive
and negative consequences for
incumbents, challengers, and
environments. Value is arbitrated
between actors leading to incremental
or substantial change. Thus, resettling a
field is often a compromise whereby
conflict remains perpetual.
Frow et al. (2014),
Giesler (2008),
Snow and Soule
(2010), and van Wijk
et al. (2013)
Incremental–substantial
Compromise
Note: SAF ¼strategic action field.
394 Marketing Theory 15(3)
by guest on August 21, 2015mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

challengers. While settlements will eventually be reached, the ensuing status quo is only a fleeting
state in a further cycle of ideological dissonance (cf. Giesler, 2008; Zeitz, 1980).
Conclusion
Existing studies of value co-creation, we argue, are largely preoccupied with individualized and
harmonious discourses leading to certain skewed assumptions that neglect messy and discordant
social reality in and around value co-creation. Although we don’t wish to depreciate previous
research, we claim that in theorizing value co-creation conceptual distinction needs to be made
between the individual and collective as well as the harmonious and conflictual dimensions of
value co-creation.
The key contribution of this article is in exploring the collective and conflictual elements in
value co-creation and presenting a conceptualization for understanding and empirically analyzing
such phenomena. While collective and conflictual value co-creation has been studied previously to
some extent (see e.g. Corvellec and Hultman, 2014; Echeverri and Ska
˚le´n, 2011; Edvardsson et al.,
2011, Ertimur and Venkatesh, 2010; Vargo and Lusch, 2008), these have not been systematically
merged and especially the conflictual aspect has been treated only implicitly. Our integration
of SAF theory with value co-creation research provides an explicit perspective for studying
collective–conflictual value co-creation. Key to that perspective is that value co-creation takes
place between collective organized actors, incumbents, and challengers who have different
interests and thus are in conflict. Central is also that these actors act within fields that are
embedded in a broader social context—environments including other SAFs—that may spark
conflicts between incumbents and challengers in a given SAF. Conflict leads to innovation,
transformation, or general repositioning of the field and actors’ positions within it and impacts
future value co-creation (see Table 1). We invite researchers of value co-creation to draw on
our framework in empirical studies to better understand the nature of value co-creation but also to
substantiate and perhaps modify it, for instance, by examining how fluid the actor roles in various
empirical contexts are.
The approach taken in this article corresponds to MacInnis’ (2011) discussion of conceptual
contributions in marketing and more precisely what she calls integration or seeing the simplicity
from the complex which by nature ‘‘involves synthesis ... [and] leads to overarching ideas that can
accommodate previous findings, resolve contradictions or puzzles, and produce novel perspec-
tives’’ (MacInnis, 2011: 146). Our conceptualization can be operationalized in empirical research
and enable empirical endeavors accounting for multiple nested actors engaged in some form of
value co-creation.
Currently, the balance of value co-creation theory gravitates from individualistic considerations
toward more holistic, systemic, and collective purviews. While we applaud this development, we
consider these considerations conceptually underdeveloped and argue that we contribute to devel-
oping them. The common denominator for recent value co-creation literature is its emphasis on
individual experience. Experience is theorized to link the value co-creation processes and value
outcomes (see e.g. Gummerus, 2013). However, the experiential view magnifies the contingency
of the theory on individual experience. As Marx (1847: ch. 6) asserts:
our wants and pleasures have their origin in society; we therefore measure them in relation to society;
we do not measure them in relation to the objects which serve for their gratification. Since they are of a
social nature, they are of a relative nature.
Laamanen and Ska
˚le
´n395
by guest on August 21, 2015mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

In line with this assertion, Corvellec and Hultman (2014) consider value irreducible to individ-
ual preference a priori but conditioned by social relations and collective preference structures.
Thus, the nature of value as a sociorelational creation on a more aggregate level rests on the per-
petuity of social interaction that inherently includes power differences and conflict—a salient ave-
nue for further critical analysis of value co-creation taking on the theoretical fetishism of mutual
benefit and the romancing value co-creation.
Our approach of examining value co-creation in collective settings also contributes with a critique
of collaboration. While collaboration is an important element in collective action and indeed, through
settlement, is the probable outcome of field friction (see also van Wijk et al., 2013), the sociological
theories drawn upon hereinform us that itis neither the only nor the dominant form ofinteraction. For
instance, Zeitz (1980) considers tendencies for cooperation and conflict to be intertwined. Our SAF
theory approach does not assume only collaborative practices in collective value co-creation; collec-
tive value co-creation processes and outcomes also exhibit other elements, such as coercion, co-
optation, consensus, contention, and compromise (see e.g. Soule, 2012; van Wijk et al., 2013). These
can be considered to emerge from conflict embedded in goals and collective dynamics on several lev-
els. In future research, we need to account for the part of these elements in value co-creation better.
By drawing on the notion of SAF, the article also contributes by changing the epicenter of
investigation from between actors—the traditional interactions focus of value co-creation
research—to the dynamic interplay of not only the focal actors but other actors, environments, and
practices of social construction. The environment, where actors draw upon for resources, skills,
and support, is not invisible or beyond the actions or influence of either party, thereby warranting
the contexts less static, instrumental, or interchangeable in nature. From the conflictual point of
view, how the context influences interaction becomes a central empirical issue. According to SDL,
resources and skills are shared in a service for service interaction. In a conflictual value, co-
creation resources and skills are withheld and utilized to overturn inequitable power relations. This
can for instance be seen in consumer movements that seek to influence the function of markets and
marketing. We suggest that future research empirically studies this and other contexts and modifies
SDL and associated frameworks according to the results that emerge.
The collective–conflictual value co-creation framework outlined here also facilitates further
ontological scrutiny of the ideological and political implications of value co-creation. The SAF
theory builds on the bearing of ideology and politics and the social skill needed in framing ideo-
logical and political claims. While an explicit discussion of this is beyond the scope of this article,
we consider that the role of ideology and politics becomes central through the collective–conflic-
tual perspective promoted here and we urge its study. Successful manipulation of either can allow
for and sustain collective action, influence tactics, and work toward the attainment of collective
goals (cf. den Hond and de Bakker, 2007). Challengers in SAFs have particular interest in affecting
social order and power relations either by inflicting change or by aiming to maintain its current
construction. By drawing on and manipulating social, cultural, and political resources, SAF actors
directly influence the conditions of their value co-creation activities.
Finally, considering the overall perspective taken in studies of the proposed collective–conflictual
perspective, some conceptual criticism is undoubtedly merited. Conceptually and linguistically,
value co-creation might not sit well with the perspective promoted here. Echeverri and Ska
˚le´n
(2011) suggest interactive value formation as a neutral substitute for value co-creation. While
this term perhaps puts too much emphasis on interaction we suggest that future research follow
Echeverri and Ska
˚le´n’s lead to construct a more neutral language that SDL and associated
streams of research can draw on.
396 Marketing Theory 15(3)
by guest on August 21, 2015mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Acknowledgment
The authors are grateful for the invaluable comments from the editor Liz Parsons and the three
anonymous reviewers.
Funding
This work is part of the first author’s dissertation research; financial support from the Finnish
Foundation for Economic Education [grant number 32080 and 120088], the Finnish Work Envi-
ronment Fund [grant number 113362], the KATAJA Graduate School Finnish Center for Service
and Relationship Management, and the KAUTE Foundation [grant number 2011272] is gratefully
acknowledged.
References
Anderson, L., Ostrom, A.L., Corus, C., et al. (2013) ‘Transformative Service Research: An Agenda for the
Future’, Journal of Business Research 66(8): 1203–10.
Askegaard, S., and Linnet, J.T. (2011) ‘Towards an Epistemology of Consumer Culture Theory: Phenom-
enology and the Context of Context’, Marketing Theory 11(4): 381–404.
Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.H., and Tetreault, M.S. (1990) ‘The Service Encounter: Diagnosing Favorable and
Unfavorable Incidents’, Journal of Marketing 54(1): 71–84.
Bonsu, S.K., and Darmody, A. (2008) ‘Co-creating Second Life: Firm-consumer Co-operation in Contempo-
rary Economy’, Journal of Macromarketing 28(3): 355–68.
Bourdieu, P., and Wacquant, L.J.D. (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Buechler, S.M. (2011) Understanding Social Movements: Theories from the Classical Era to the Present.
Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
Chandler, J.D., and Vargo, S.L. (2011) ‘Contextualisation and Value-in-context: How Context Frames
Exchange’, Marketing Theory 11(1): 35–49.
Corvellec, H., and Hultman, J. (2014) ‘Managing the Politics of Value Propositions’, Marketing Theory 14(4):
355–75.
Coser, L.A. (1957) ‘Social Conflict and the Theory of Social Change’, The British Journal of Sociology 8(3):
197–207.
Cova, B., and Dalli, D. (2009) ‘Working Consumers: The Next Step in Marketing Theory?’, Marketing
Theory 9(3): 315–39.
Cova, B., Pace, S., and Ska
˚le´ n, P. (2015) ‘Brand Volunteering: Value Co-creation with Unpaid Consumers’,
Marketing Theory. Epub ahead of print 4 February 2015. DOI: 10.1177/1470593115568919.
Della Porta, D., and Diani, M. (2006) Social Movements. 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley.
den Hond, F., and de Bakker, F. G. A. (2007) ‘Ideologically Motivated Activism: How Activist Groups
Influence Corporate Social Change Activities’, Academy of Management Review 32(3): 901–24.
den Hond, F., Boersma, F.K., Heres, L., et al. (2012) ‘Giddens a` la Carte? Appraising Empirical Applications
of Structuration Theory in Management and Organization Studies’, Journal of Political Power 5(2):
239–64.
Echeverri, P., and Ska
˚le´ n, P. (2011) ‘Co-creation and Co-destruction: A Practice-theory Based Study on Inter-
active Value Formation’, Marketing Theory 11(3): 351–73.
Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B., and Gruber, T. (2011) ‘Expanding Understanding of Service Exchange and
Value Co-creation: A Social Construction Approach’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 39(2):
327–39.
Edvardsson, B., Ska
˚le´ n, P., and Tronvoll, B. (2012) ‘Service Systems as a Foundation for Resource
Integration and Value Co-Creation’, in S. L. Vargo and R. F. Lusch (eds) Review of Marketing Research,
Vol. 9, pp. 79–126. Bingley: Emerald.
Laamanen and Ska
˚le
´n397
by guest on August 21, 2015mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Ertimur, B., and Venkatesh, A. (2010) ‘Opportunism in Co-production: Implications for Value Co-creation’,
Australasian Marketing Journal 18(4): 256–63.
Fantasia, R. (1988) Cultures of Solidarity. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Fligstein, N., and McAdam, D. (2011) ‘Toward a General Theory of Strategic Action Fields’, Sociological
Theory 29(1): 1–26.
Fligstein, N., and McAdam, D. (2012) A Theory of Fields. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Frow, P., McColl-Kennedy, J.R., Hilton, T., et al. (2014) ‘Value Propositions: A Service Ecosystems Per-
spective’, Marketing Theory 14(3): 327–51.
Fyrberg Yngfalk, A. (2013) ‘It’s Not Us, it’s Them!’ – Rethinking Value Co-creation Among Multiple
Actors’, Journal of Marketing Management 29(9-10): 1163–81.
Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giesler, M. (2008) ‘Conflict and Compromise: Drama in Marketplace Evolution’, Journal of Consumer
Research 34(6): 739–53.
Gilbert, J. (2014) Common Ground. London: Pluto Press.
Gro¨ nroos, C. (2011) ‘Value Co-creation in Service Logic: A Critical Analysis’, Marketing Theory 11(3):
279–301.
Gro¨ nroos, C., and Voima, P. (2013) ‘Critical Service Logic: Making Sense of Value Creation and Co-cre-
ation’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 41(2): 133–50.
Gummerus, J. (2013) ‘Value Creation Processes and Value Outcomes in Marketing Theory: Strangers or
Siblings?’, Marketing Theory 13(1): 19–46.
Haenfler, R., Johnson, B., and Jones, E. (2012) ‘Lifestyle Movements: Exploring the Intersection of Lifestyle
and Social Movements’, Social Movement Studies 11(1): 1–20.
Heinonen, K., Strandvik, T., Mickelsson, K., et al. (2010) ‘A Customer-dominant Logic of Service’, Journal
of Service Management 21(4): 531–48.
King, B.G. (2011) ‘The Tactical Disruptiveness of Social Movements: Sources of Market and Mediated
Disruption in Corporate Boycotts’, Social Problems 58(4): 491–517.
Korkman, O. (2006) Customer Value Formation in Practice: a Practice-Theoretical Approach. Helsinki:
Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration.
Korkman, O., Storbacka, K., and Harald, B. (2010) ‘Practices as Markets: Value Co-creation in E-invoicing’,
Australasian Marketing Journal 18(4): 236–47.
Kotler, P., and Levy, S.J. (1969) ‘Broadening the Concept of Marketing’, Journal of Marketing 33(1): 10–5.
Kozinets, R.V., and Handelman, J.M. (2004) ‘Adversaries of Consumption: Consumer Movements, Activism,
and Ideology’, Journal of Consumer Research 31(3): 691–704.
Lusch, R.F., and Webster, F.E. Jr. (2011) ‘A Stakeholder-Unifying, Cocreation Philosophy for Marketing’,
Journal of Macromarketing 31(2): 129–34.
Marx, K. (1847) Wage Labour and Capital, URL (consulted 6 October 2014): http://www.marxists.org/
archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/
McAdam, D., and Scott, W.R. (2005) ‘Organizations and Movements’, in G. F. Davis, D. McAdam, W. R.
Scott, and M. N. Zald (eds) Social Movements and Organization Theory, pp. 4–40. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
McCammon, H., Muse, C.S., Newman, H.D., et al. (2007) ‘Movement Framing and Discursive Opportunity
Structures: The Political Successes of the U.S. Women’s Jury Movements’, American Sociological Review
72(5): 725–49.
MacInnis, D.J. (2011) ‘A Framework for Conceptual Contributions in Marketing’, Journal of Marketing
75(4): 136–54.
Olson, M. (1971) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Parker, M., Cheney, G., Fournier, V., et al. (2014) ‘Advanced Capitalism: Its Promise and Failings’, in
M. Parker, G. Cheney, V. Fournier, and C. Land (eds) The Routledge Companion to Alternative
Organization, pp. 3–17. London: Routledge.
398 Marketing Theory 15(3)
by guest on August 21, 2015mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Pen
˜aloza, L., and Venkatesh, A. (2006) ‘Further Evolving the New Dominant Logic in Marketing: From
Services to the Social Construction of Markets’, Marketing Theory 6(3): 299–316.
Ple´ , L., and Chumpitaz Ca´ceres, R. (2010) ‘Not Always Co-creation: Introducing Interactional Co-destruction
of Value in Service-dominant Logic’, Journal of Services Marketing 24(6): 430–37.
Reckwitz, A. (2002) ‘Toward a Theory of Social Practices. A Development in Culturalist Theorizing’,
European Journal of Social Theory 5(2): 243–63.
Rucht, D. (2004) ‘Movement Allies, Adversaries, and Third Parties’, in D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, and H.
Kriesi (eds) The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, pp. 197–216. Malden: Blackwell.
Schatzki, T.R. (1996) Social Practices: A Wittgensteinian Approach to Human Activity and the Social.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schau, H.J., Mun
˜iz, A.M. Jr., and Arnould, E.J. (2009) ‘How Brand Community Practices Create Value’,
Journal of Marketing 73(5): 30–51.
Scott, W.R. (2004) ‘Reflection on a Half-Century of Organizational Sociology’, Annual Review of Sociology
30: 1–21.
Shove, E., Pantzar, M., and Watson, M. (2012) The Dynamics of Social Practice. London: Sage.
Simmel, G. (1955) Conflict & The Web of Group-Affiliations. New York: The Free Press.
Snow, D.A. (2004) ‘Framing Processes, Ideology, and Discursive Fields’, in D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, and
H. Kriesi (eds) The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, pp. 380–412. Malden: Blackwell.
Snow, D.A., and Byrd, S.C. (2007) ‘Ideology, Framing Processes, and Islamic Terrorist Movements’,
Mobilization: An International Quarterly 12(2): 119–36.
Snow, D.A., and Soule, S.A. (2010) Primer on Social Movements. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
Snow,D.A.,Soule,S.A.,andKriesi,H.(2004)‘MappingtheTerrain’,inD.A.Snow,S.A.Soule,and
H. Kriesi (eds) The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, pp. 3–16. Malden: Blackwell.
Soule, S.A. (2012) ‘Social Movements and Markets, Industries, and Firms’, Organization Studies 33(12):
1715–33.
Spencer, R., and Cova, B. (2012) ‘Market Solutions: Breaking Free from Dyad-centric Logic and Broadening
the Scope of S-D L’, Journal of Marketing Management 28(13-14): 1571–87.
Spohrer, J., Maglio, P.P., Bailey, J., et al. (2007) ‘Steps Toward a Science of Service Systems’, Computer
40(1): 71–7.
van Wijk, J., Stam, W., Elfring, T., et al. (2013) ‘Activists and Incumbents Structuring Change: The Interplay
of Agency, Culture, and Networks in Field Evolution’, Academy of Management Journal 56(2): 358–86.
Vargo, S.L., and Lusch, R.F. (2004) ‘Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing’, Journal of Mar-
keting 68(1): 1–17.
Vargo, S.L., and Lusch, R.F. (2008) ‘Service-Dominant Logic: Continuing the Evolution’, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 36(1): 1–10.
Varman, R., and Belk, R.W. (2009) ‘Nationalism and Ideology in an Anticonsumption Movement’, Journal of
Consumer Research 36(4): 686–700.
Varman, R., Ska
˚le´ n, P., and Belk, R.W. (2012) ‘Conflicts at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Profitability, Poverty
Alleviation, and Neoliberal Governmentality’, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 31(1): 19–35.
Wahlen, S. (2009) ‘The Consumer Stuck Between a Rock of Victimhood and a Hard Place called Respon-
sibility: Political Discourses on the ‘Consumer’ in Finnish and German Governmental Policy Documents’,
International Journal of Consumer Studies 33(4): 361–68.
Zeitz, G. (1980) ‘Interorganizational Dialectics’, Administrative Science Quarterly 25(1): 72–86.
Zwick, D., Bonsu, S.K., and Darmody, A. (2008) ‘Putting Consumers to Work: ‘Co-creation’ and new
marketing govern-mentality’, Journal of Consumer Culture 8(2): 163–96.
Mikko Laamanen is a doctoral candidate at the Department of Marketing and the Centre for Relationship
Marketing and Service Management (CERS) at Hanken School of Economics, Finland. His research focuses
on the social dynamics and practices of organizing communities, collective action, and value creation. While
Laamanen and Ska
˚le
´n399
by guest on August 21, 2015mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

writing this article, he has been a visiting research fellow the Paul Merage School of Business and the Center
for Organizational Research at the University of California Irvine (USA); the School of Management at Royal
Holloway University of London (UK), and Service Research Center at Karlstad University (Sweden).
Address: Department of Marketing, Hanken School of Economics, P.O. Box 479, Helsinki 00101, Finland.
[email: mikko.laamanen@hanken.fi]
Per Ska
˚le
´nis a professor of business administration based at the Service Research Center, Karlstad Univer-
sity, Sweden. He is currently working within the domains of transformative service research, service innova-
tion, critical marketing, and with applying practice theory to marketing research. His work has appeared in
several journals including Marketing Theory,Journal of Marketing Management,Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science,Journal of Public Policy & Marketing,Organization, and Journal of Service Research
(forthcoming). Address: Service Research Center (CTF), Karlstad University, Karlstad 65188, Sweden.
[email: per.skalen@kau.se]
400 Marketing Theory 15(3)
by guest on August 21, 2015mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from