Evolución de la normativa de los biocombustibles en Chile

Payne and Holt (2001) present the concepts of shareholder value, customer value and relationship value as the most recent developments in the value literature. A different classification is offered in the present study because the emergence of the notions of shareholder value and customer value (often used as a shortcut for customer-perceived value) can be traced back into the early 1990s. This section concerns concepts emerging in the mid or late 1990s and aims to extend Payne and Holt’s (2001) work by reviewing the latest studies on supply- and network-related concepts, and relationship value.

3.2.3.1. Supply–Related Concepts and Value-Creating Networks

The shift in value analysis from a restricted dyadic perspective to a network perspective shows, for instance, in a study by Ritter and Gemunden (2001) who analyze value creation in interactions between actors at the levels of dyads, portfolios, nets, and networks. At the

‘portfolio’ level of analysis, they state that given the value of individual relationships, value creation can be aggregated for a whole set of relationships. Likewise financial portfolio management, the idea is that different relationships can be used for different purposes. The unit of analysis in a portfolio is ‘relationships to similar type of actors’. The value of a whole portfolio is then determined by the degree to which the different relationships complement and substitute one another. As such, the value will not systematically be the sum of the relationships’ values but can either be more or less (Burdock et al. 2001).

Finally, Ritter and Gemunden comment on the network level, constituting the more holistic view on value creation with a focus on whole industries or supply networks.

In this holistic perspective of value creation, limitations of value chain and supply chain as conceptual tools have led researchers to develop multiple concepts related to an ‘extended

supply chain’. The Supply Chain Council defines supply chains as encompassing ‘every effort involved in producing and delivering a final product or service, from the supplier’s supplier to the customer’s customer’ (Huemer 2006: 136). Yet, the concept does not allow the capture of end-users’ future needs and more importantly, the relationship building aspects of the supply process (Al-Mudimigh et al. 2004). Examples of extended supply chains include the value system concept (e.g., Möller et al. 2005), value creation systems (e.g., Parolini 1999), hyper-chains (e.g., Sakkas et al. 1999), inter-firm logistics networks (e.g., Buse 2000), supply-networks (e.g., Harland et al. 2001; Harland et al. 2004; Lamming et al. 2000), supply-chain networks (e.g., Wathne and Heide 2004), and value-creating networks (e.g., Helander 2004; Kothandaraman and Wilson 2001). Beyond this semantic variety, all the concepts emphasize the core importance of interfirm relationships in the value creation process within a network business context.

The integration of multiple stakeholders in the assessment of value creation reinforces the necessity to address another question, mainly raised in studies on dyadic relationships: who produces and who receives the value created? In recent years, researchers have increasingly acknowledged that customers should not be the only ‘value receivers’. Studies have undertaken to focus on the perspective of suppliers (e.g., Möller and Törrönen 2003;

Showalter et al. 2003; Simpson et al. 2001) or on the importance of end-customers (customers’ customers) (e.g., Kothandaraman and Wilson 2001; Parolini 1999). Value sharing was soon considered a major issue in the life of a relationship (Wilson and Möller 1992; Wilson 1995). In this manner, business relationships should increasingly be studied in a context where stakeholders are value ‘co-producers’ and ‘co-receivers’ (Huemer 2006;

Prahalad and Venkat 2004).

The supply literature provides an increasing number of additional studies in this direction.

For instance, Jayaram et al. (2004) developed the concept of supply chain value creation (SCVC) which establishes from where value creation should be considered in the supply chain, namely the three following sources of value: supplier value, customer value, and internal processes value.

Furthermore, value configuration analysis is a recent contribution to strategic management theory by Stabell and Fjeldstad (1998) applied successfully in the supply management context (Huemer 2006). It incorporates the value chain model and the value network model which catalogues more accurately the activities of actors who act as mediators (such as Logistic Services Providers), creating value primarily by connecting customers.

Value analysis is another concept of interest which relies on value equations as a mechanism for understanding the value (Vc) that customers perceive they will gain by purchasing from a particular supplier (Vc = Bc – Cc, when Bc are the perceived benefits and Cc are the perceived life time costs arising from making the purchase) (Blois 2004).

Blois enriches this approach when introducing ‘intangible assets’ to encompass both measurable and non-measurable costs. He develops two value equations that can be used to assess value sharing: first, the customers’ value equation, determined by the perceived benefits (e.g., additions to gross profit, reduced operating costs, and reduced working capital) minus the perceived life cycle cost of product/service (e.g., ordering costs, purchase price, set-up costs, operating and maintenance costs, and financing costs); and second, the suppliers’ value equation, determined as the perceived benefits of supplying a specific customer (e.g., purchase price, reputational effects of association with the customer, and access to market) minus the perceived life cycle sacrifices of supplying the product/service (e.g., costs of production and delivery, service and servicing costs, financing costs, disposal costs, and preclusion from selling to this customer’s competitor) (Blois 2004: 251-52).

These new developments fully correspond to the concept of relationship value, presented in the following subsection.

3.2.3.2. Relationship Value

3.2.3.2.1. Origins

The concept of relationship value (RV) is often described as the most recent research stream on value creation. It emerged in the mid-nineties from research on customer-perceived value in the context of relationship marketing when researchers became interested in value creation through relational dimensions instead of merely the physical product (Eggert et al. 2006; Payne and Holt 2001; Ulaga 2003).

For a definition of relationship marketing, Morgan and Hunt (1994: 22) refer ‘to all marketing activities directed toward establishing, developing, and maintaining, successful relational exchanges’. The idea that relationship marketing encompasses relational contracting echoes the observation that ‘marketing is shifting away from a focus on exchange, in the narrow sense of transaction, towards a focus on building value-laden relationships and marketing networks’ (Nevin 1995: 327). According to Nevin, other definitions include the idea of value creation as an objective achieved by developing close and long-term relationships with selected customers, suppliers, and competitors through cooperative and collaborative efforts. In the same vein, relationship marketing is presented as emphasizing inter-party collaboration and the co-production of mutual value through long-term win-win relationships with customers and a number of additional stakeholders (Payne and Holt 2001). Thus, relationship marketing differentiates from transaction marketing not only for including relational elements but also for focusing on multiple stakeholders (Payne and Holt 2001; Ravald and Grönroos 1996).

3.2.3.2.2. Conceptualization

Three main approaches are identified in the literature to the conceptualization of relationship value. These approaches relate to the ‘drivers’, the ‘dimensions’, and the

‘evolution over time’ of value creation.

First, relationship value (RV) is conceptualized through a focus on the ‘drivers’ or

‘sources’ of value creation. This view underlies the typical ‘trade-off approach’ of RV (costs vs. benefits). Lapierre (2000) points out that research on customer value in the mid-1990s needed to look at relational value-based drivers in addition to product- and service-related drivers because sources of both product-based and process-based competitive advantages can be quickly imitated in a hyper-competitive environment. She identifies 13 value-based drivers classified into ten benefits: product-related benefits (e.g., alternative solutions, product quality, and product customization), service-related benefits (e.g., responsiveness, flexibility, reliability, and technical competence), and relationship-related benefits (e.g., trust, and supplier’s image and solidarity with customers); and three sacrifices: product- and service- related sacrifices (e.g., price), and relationship-related sacrifices (e.g., time, efforts, energy, and conflict).

The idea that value may be relationship-related in addition to being product- and service-related has been brought to the forefront by Ravald and Grönroos as they argued that ‘the customer is seen as shifting the focus from evaluating separate offerings to evaluating the relationship as a whole’ (1996: 23). In this perspective, it is of extreme importance that suppliers realize the need and significance of continuity in a customer relationship.

According to Ravald and Grönroos (1996), the supplier’s core offerings may be fundamental but it is not the ultimate reason explaining the customer’s re-purchase. The very existence of the relationship can be a rationale as parties involved try to come to an agreement even though offerings are not exactly the one sought after. In distinguishing

‘episodes of interactions’ from the long-term relationships in which they are embedded, Ravald and Grönroos conceptualize the total episode value in a customer-supplier relationship as a function of both episode value and relationship value (total episode value

= episode benefits + relationship benefits / episode sacrifice + relationship sacrifice). On an episode basis, components of benefits that enhance customer-perceived value are for example: superior product quality, brand/image, tailoring, and supporting services. On the long term, these benefits are related to, for instance, safety, credibility, security, and continuity. Yet, Ravald and Grönroos insist on the importance of the counterpart to benefits in value assessment (i.e., relationship sacrifices). Contrary to the common idea that value creation comes with an increase of benefits (e.g., improving the core product quality and adding supporting services like training programs, warranties, and after-purchase service), Ravald and Grönroos (1996) claim that reducing perceived-sacrifices may be an equally and even more important source of value creation in relationships. They explain that a reduction of perceived sacrifices may involve activities such as lowering the actual price of the product/service purchased but can also target ‘indirect costs’ (e.g., costs arising from delayed delivery, and costs for the time needed to sort out incorrect invoices) and

‘psychological supplier relationship costs’ (e.g., worrying about whether a supplier will fulfill his promises which requires a mental capacity that could be used more productively).

These costs can be minimized by improving internal and external service quality through

‘accuracy, flexibility, efficiency and a zero-defection strategy in production, delivery, and after-delivery routines’ (Ravald and Grönroos 1996: 26).

Building on this idea, Cannon and Homburg (2001) identified three domains where value can be created through cost reductions in business relationships: the core product, the sourcing process, and the customer firm’s internal operations. They established that the

‘total customer firm costs’ are formed by: direct costs (the actual price charged by the supplier); acquisition costs (costs customers incur in acquiring and storing products from a particular supplier which include expenses related to ordering, delivering, and storing products, monitoring supplier performance, and coordinating and communicating with the supplier); and finally, operation costs (costs inherent in the customer firm’s primary

business such as expenses for research and development, manufacturing, downtime, and internal coordination) (Cannon and Homburg 2001).

The second approach of RV focuses on the multidimensionality of the concept through a study of the ‘components’, ‘dimensions’, and ‘functions’ of value creation in relationships.

Wilson and Jantrania (1993) offer one of the first descriptions of RV dimensions by describing: economic dimensions (value emerges from savings in terms of cost and time-to-market, thus investments in quality, value engineering, and cost reduction are important);

strategic dimensions (core competencies, strategic fit, and strategic goals); and behavioral/psychological dimensions (social bonding, trust, and culture). Recently, Walter et al. (2003) determined that the dimensions of a relationship having an impact on its quality included: cost function, quality function, volume function, and safeguard function.

According to these authors, four indirect functions complement a supplier’s potential of value creation: market function, scout function, innovation development function, and social support function. In the same vein, Möller and Törrönen (2003) conceptualized value in a supplier-customer relationship along the following dimensions: supplier’s efficiency function (referring to the efficacious use of resources in a business relationship);

effectiveness function (the company’s ability to invent and produce solutions that provide more value to customers than existing offers); and network function (taking into account the potential of value creation in the larger network beyond the dyadic supplier-customer relationship).

Finally, the conceptualization of relationship value develops through discussions about the evolution of value over time. This approach distinguishes clearly RV from previous streams of research by emphasizing that the concept grasps the dynamic nature of value (Flint et al.

2002; Payne and Holt 2001). Constructs derived from this approach to RV include the expected relationship value (ERV) and the customers’ desired value change (CDVC).

Hogan defined the value of a customer-supplier relationship as ‘the aggregate worth of all exchanges that will occur between two firms’ (2001: 341). The expected relationship value

(ERV) is then proposed as ‘the perceived net worth of the tangible benefits to be derived over the life of the relationship’ where value is ‘the net worth of current and future benefits, including the costs (e.g., capital investments, managerial time, transaction costs, direct product costs, and operating costs) of obtaining those benefits’ (Hogan 2001: 341). Flint et al. (2002) develops the construct of customers’ desired value change (CDVC) which favors a better understanding of how and why customers change what they value over time.

Building on this work, Beverland and Lockshin (2003) use longitudinal methods to track CDVC and examine the strategies and structure used by firms to successfully adapt to this change. Finally, the latest and promising angle taken on this topic is the exploitation of the life cycle concept since the relationship life cycle has been found to be an important moderating variable in the perception of relationship value (Cannon and Homburg 2001;

Eggert et al. 2006).

3.2.3.2.3. Measurement

Operationalizing relationship value is challenging since the way value creation is to be measured is a core issue (Simpson et al. 2001). The difficulty emanates from measuring intangible assets included in psychological/behavioral and strategic dimensions (e.g., assessing the value of adding to a firm’s core competency) (Wilson and Jantrania 1993).

Ulaga and Eggert are the first researchers who succeeded in proposing a measure of RV grounded in managerial practice and validated empirically (Eggert and Ulaga 2002, 2004;

Eggert et al. 2006; Ulaga 2001; Ulaga and Eggert 2002; Ulaga 2003; Ulaga and Eggert 2005, 2006b). First, Ulaga (2003) has outlined six generic relationship benefit dimensions:

‘product quality’, ‘service support’, ‘delivery performance’, ‘supplier know-how’, ‘time-to-market’, and ‘personal interaction’. Mirroring Cannon and Homburg’s (2001) work on relationships’ costs, Ulaga and Eggert (2005) have then included costs dimensions in their assessment of RV with the evaluation of: ‘direct costs’, ‘acquisition costs’, and ‘operation

costs’. Their most recent approach of RV consists in operationalizing the construct in a 2*3 matrix that distinguishes between two fundamental dimensions of value creation (i.e., benefits and costs) and three levels at which these drivers operate (i.e., core offerings, sourcing process, and customer firm’s internal operations) (Ulaga and Eggert 2006b).

Specifically, Ulaga and Eggert identify nine key differentiators in buyer-seller relationships. At the level of a supplier’s core offerings, benefits are related to ‘product quality’ (e.g., product performance, reliability, and consistency), and ‘delivery performance’ (e.g., on-time delivery, delivery flexibility, and accuracy of delivery) while sacrifices include the direct product costs. At the level of the sourcing process, benefits are related to ‘service support’ (e.g., product-related services, customer information, and outsourcing of activities), and ‘personal interaction’ (e.g., communication, problem solving, and mutual goals), while sacrifices include ‘acquisition costs’ in the sourcing process. At the level of the customer’s operations, benefits are related to the ‘supplier’s know-how’

(e.g., knowledge of supply market, improvement of existing products, and development of new products), improvement in ‘time to market’ (including design tasks, prototype development, and product testing and validation), while sacrifices consist of ‘operations costs’. This measure of RV as a trade-off between perceived benefits and perceived costs generated in the relationship is operationalized from the point of view of the customer.

Ulaga and Eggert (2006b) have used this measure to determine how key-suppliers differentiate from the next best alternative supplier in a cross-industrial context of routinely purchased components.

In summary, this review of existing publications in the strategy and marketing literature reveals the evolution of value research from a focus on products and services to a focus on relationships among trade actors. The following section examines the phenomenon of interfirm relationships as a means of value creation from the perspectives of other research fields and from a theoretical point of view.