China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Food waste or surplus? Reading between the lines of discourse and action
Published in Anitra Nelson, Ferne Edwards, Food for Degrowth, 2020
It is inadequate to understand discarded food as ‘waste’. I prefer food surplus, as a ‘holding category or gap’ (Midgley 2018, 181) that retains the possibility of use to be revalued. However, I use food ‘waste’ and ‘surplus’ interchangeably and propose that food waste is understood as surplus food excluded from human foodways for reasons unrelated to use value (Hepp 2016). This definition takes into account the Marxist distinction between use value and exchange value, where use value refers to the usefulness or purpose of a thing for a person, while exchange value takes only an object’s economic value into account (González de Molina and Toledo 2014). Thus, the use value of food is its nutritional value, while exchange value refers to its price. In industrial societies and capitalist economies, use values are displaced and ‘food is treated as a disposable commodity, disconnected from the social and environmental impact of its production’ (Stuart 2009, xvi).
Introduction
Published in Ani Raiden, Martin Loosemore, Andrew King, Chris Gorse, Social Value in Construction, 2018
Ani Raiden, Martin Loosemore, Andrew King, Chris Gorse
Understanding of value in a business context has been traditionally informed by an economic perspective (see Griffith, Knight and King 2003; Kelly, Male and Graham 2007). Three widely used concepts include ‘value in use’, ‘value in exchange’, and ‘esteem value’. Value in use refers to the function of a service or a product that satisfies a need or generates pleasure for its owner (Griffith, Knight and King 2003: 71). Value in exchange relates to the worth or the monetary sums for which the service or product can be traded (Kelly, Male and Graham 2007: 150). Importantly, a particular service or a product may have a great value in use but a relatively low value in exchange; for example, water. Alternatively, a service or a product may have a high value in exchange but a low value in use; for example, diamonds. This is known as the paradox of value (Griffith, Knight and King 2003: 71; Kelly, Male and Graham 2007: 152). It demonstrates that market prices often do not necessarily reflect personal notions of value – a problem which lies at the heart of controversies around the monetisation of social value using techniques such as social return on investment (SROI). In the context of the built environment, it is also helps to explain why market prices can often inadequately reflect the social value of construction and infrastructure developments where the value in use for various stakeholders is high but value in exchange is relatively low. A good example of this is social housing provision within a deprived area (for examples see the case studies in Chapter 9 in Part 2 of this book) where houses offer high social value by providing homes for occupants suffering disadvantage who may otherwise be homeless while financial market capitalisation opportunities for investors are small – a common problem facing many social entrepreneurs. Finally, esteem value relates to the functions of prestige, appearance, and/ or other non-quantifiable benefits, such as purchasing something simply for the sake of possession (Kelly, Male and Graham, 2007: 151). Architecture and design work often carry high esteem value. However, evaluation of such value is subjective, and thus very difficult to measure. Measuring value then becomes an exercise of appreciating and considering often complex and competing questions about value in use, value in exchange and esteem value. In practical terms, this raises questions about how we weight the value judgements of specific elements of a construction project for example for different stakeholders affected. In an attempt to address these types of dilemmas, concepts of public value and shared value have emerged as two specific ideas from value theory that promote socially aware value management (Moore 1995; Benington and Moore 2011).
Front-end value co-creation in housing development projects
Published in Construction Management and Economics, 2021
Melissa Candel, Tina Karrbom Gustavsson, Per-Erik Eriksson
The value co-creation literature is founded on a shift towards collaborative processes and services, as opposed to traditional views that focus on the suppliers’ perspective and place goods at the heart of value creation (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004; Vargo and Lusch 2004, 2008; Grönroos 2012). This literature is most notably based on a service-dominant logic (SDL) approach (Vargo and Lusch 2004), which suggests that ‘value resides in the services rendered by the product and services together’ (Liu et al.2014, p. 120). According to SDL, it is the beneficiary that determines the value of a service (Vargo and Lusch 2008), and suppliers can only provide potential value (Grönroos 2017). A distinction is therefore made between value for the supplier and value that is realised through the customers’ use of the suppliers’ products or services, also referred to as value-in-use (Liu et al.2019).
Service orientation in business networking: a demand-supply chain perspective
Published in Production Planning & Control, 2019
Mohammad Reza Rasouli, Rob J. Kusters, Jos J. M. Trienekens, Paul W. P. J. Grefen
Service orientation within the value creation dimension addresses the service-dominant (S-D) logic of marketing (Vargo and Lusch 2004) and focuses on the creation of the value by customers. The S-D logic states that value always is determined by a customer in the form of the value-in-use. The concept of value-in-use demonstrates that value is created by a customer during the usage of a service or product (Grönroos and Voima 2013). This is contrary to the good-dominant (G-D) logic of marketing that views value from the supplier perspective as an economic benefit that is gained from a product or service fulfilled (i.e. value-in-exchange). Hence, it can be concluded that service orientation within the value creation dimension leads to the shift from a supplier-centric view on value (i.e. value-in-exchange) to a customer-centric view (i.e. value-in-use), see Figure 2, the value created axis. On the basis of Christopher and Ryals (2014), service orientation in this direction is in line with the shift from focusing on the fulfilment of a product or service (e.g. through conventional supply chain processes) towards concentrating on co-creating value (e.g. through deep understanding of desired value by a customer during its usage). According to the S-D logic, which indicates that the value is created by the customer, this shift stresses that the role of a supplier is the facilitation of the usage of a product or service by a customer and not only its delivery. In this way, the S-D logic highlights customer–supplier interactions during the usage of a product or a service that is reflected by the value co-creation concept.
The Role of Digital Technologies in the Music Industry—A Qualitative Trend Analysis
Published in Information Systems Management, 2023
The literature defines value creation as a process aimed at increasing value generation (Chesbrough et al., 2018; Visnjic et al., 2018) and introduces the value-in-use (value created through customer use) perspective as a critical distinction to the classical value-in-exchange (i.e., at the point of sale) perspective (Vargo & Lusch, 2015). Focusing on the value-in-use perspective, companies can align more effectively with customers and develop greater potential for gaining competitive advantage (Chesbrough et al., 2018). This is achieved as the value creation refers to the set of activities that enable providers and customers to gradually reach this higher value (Sjödin et al., 2020).