Management Review Quarterly (2020) 70:191–212

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-019-00164-7

From value chain to value network: a systematic literature

review

Francesco Ricciotti1

Received: 2 October 2018 / Accepted: 5 June 2019 / Published online: 10 June 2019
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Abstract
Although over the years several contributions to the concept of the value chain have
been provided, there is no systematic literature review focused on its evolution. The
purpose of this paper is to fill this gap. A final sample of 66 papers has been analysed
through an historical approach. On the one hand, the value chain concept has been
developed in order to reach new fields, while on the other hand, a new concept of a
Value Network has appeared and seems to be more suitable in respect of the original
value chain concept for designing and analysing business, in the increasingly complex
world of today. When analysing the various papers, six key concepts emerged that
guided this evolution from value chain to value network: sustainability, globalization,
collaboration, intangible assets, flexibility, and agility. Furthermore, this paper is useful
when deciding which tool to use to manage a company, whether to do business within
a network and how to pursue a sustainable competitive advantage. Finally, further
research suggestions about firms performance inside and outside a network and about
networks creation are provided.

Keywords Value chain · Value network · Evolution · Systematic literature review

JEL Classification L1 Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance

1 Introduction

The concept of the Value Chain was developed for the first time by Michal Porter
during his studies on competitive advantage (Porter 1985). This is a tool to understand
how firms can create and sustain value for their customers and how maximize it, so
the Value Chain then becomes the source of competitive advantage. It is formed by

B Francesco Ricciotti
francesco.ricciotti@uniroma2.it

1 Business Management and Accounting, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, Via Columbia, 2,
00133 Rome, Italy

123
192 F. Ricciotti

several strategic activities, which are useful to deliver valuable products or services to
the market, and it is included in the wider Value System, containing also the concepts
of the Supplier Value Chain, Channel Value Chain and Buyer Value Chain. Inside the
Value Chain the activities are not interdependent and, starting from the generic model
of the Value Chain, it is therefore possible to shape a specific model for a particular
firm. Over the years, the Value Chain concept has been enlarged and innovated (Ensign
2001; Fine 2002; Shapiro et al. 1993; Simatupang et al. 2017), so that even more
focused contributions have been developed: (1) Virtual Value Chain (Rayport and
Sviokla 1995); (2) Global Value Chain (Anderson 2000); (3) Added Value Chain
(McPhee and Wheeler 2006); (4) Reverse Value Chain (Jayaraman and Luo 2007);
(5) Sustainable Value Chain (Fearne and Martinez 2012); and others.
While specific evolutions of the Value Chain initiated the first steps, a wider and
deeper thought about value creation was being shaped—the concept of a Value Net-
work. While in the Value Chain, there is a sequential and linear logic to the process
organization in order to reach value creation, in the more fluid Value Network, the pro-
cess does not have a rigid order but works at the same time in a network within which
there are also external organizations; the competition today is not between companies
analysed by the Value Chain but between networks of interconnected organizations
analysed by the Value Network (Normann and Ramirez 1993; Peppard and Rylan-
der 2006). Indeed, in the Value Network logic, there are, as well as the fundamental
activities, also the concepts of stakeholders, open innovation networks and relation-
ships. One of the fundamental drivers of this evolution is the change in consumers’
behaviour, as they no longer buy only in the traditional way, i.e. in a store, but they
can also use other channels linked to the web (Allee 2000; Bovel and Martha 2000;
Kothandaraman and Wilson 2001).
Although over the years several contributions to the concept of the Value Chain
and its evolution have been provided, there is no Systematic Literature Review (SLR)
focused on the evolution of this concept, so in this paper these contributions have been
combined and analysed using the SLR method. In the literature others have undertaken
reviews on the Value Chain but with some differences; these are: an SLR focused on
the Offshore Value Chain (Schmeisser 2013); a literature review of the Value Grid
model (Hahn and Kodó 2017); a comparative review on Value Chain development
(Donovan et al. 2015); a review of sustainable chain governance (Bush et al. 2015);
and a critical review of network capabilities (Äyväri and Möller 2008).
The paper’s structure is as follows. First, the initial conceptualization of the Value
Chain developed by Porter in 1985 is offered. Second, through the SLR method, a list
of papers about the Value Chain has been identified. Third, these articles in terms of
timeframe and topic evolution have been analysed. Fourth, the advancements in the
Value Chain concept are detailed by periods (i.e. 1985–1990, 1991–1995, 1996–2000,
2001–2005, 2006–2010, 2011–2017). Fifth, discussions and conclusions are provided.

2 1985: Michael porter and the value chain concept

The Value Chain concept was developed for the first time by Michal Porter during his
studies on competitive advantage (Porter 1985). This is a framework with the aim of

123
From value chain to value network: a systematic… 193

thinking strategically about business activities (value activities) in terms of costs and
contribution; it is also useful to understand how firms can create, sustain and maximize
value for their customers. The Value Chain activities are divided into two types—five
primary and four support activities; every firm has physical and process components.
On the one hand, the generic categories of primary activities are involved in the
physical creation and delivery of the product to the customers, and each category can
be divided into several specific activities as a function of industry and firm strategy.
These are: (1) Inbound Logistics, concerning the supply of materials; (2) Operations,
concerning the transformation of the input into the final product; (3) Outbound Logis-
tics, concerning the distribution of the product; (4) Marketing and Sales associated
with the activities of advertising, promotion, channel selection, pricing, etc.; and (5)
Service, with activities that enhance or maintain the value of the products. On the other
hand, the support activities are involved in sustaining the primary ones. These are: (1)
Procurement, related to purchasing inputs for the entire Value Chain; (2) Technology
Development, here there are activities with the scope to improve both product and pro-
cess; (3) Human Resource Management, consisting of activities required for recruiting,
hiring, training, developing people and also remuneration; and (4) Firm Infrastructure,
which includes activities such as accounting, general management, finance, planning,
legal, quality management, etc. The two types of competitive advantage attainable by
the Value Chain are cost advantage or differentiation. Throughout Porter’s work, it is
clear that the most important role is played by information technology (IT); this has
impacts both on differentiation and cost reduction, as it is the lever to create compet-
itive advantage, to create new business, and to change the way firms operate. In order
to survive, responding to the changes of technological evolution is fundamental.

3 Methodology

The SLR method has been adopted as the research design most suited to the aims of
this review. This method can be found both in papers on literature review guidelines
(Webster and Watson 2002) and in papers about other fields (Abatecola et al. 2013a,
b; Cafferata et al. 2009; Cristofaro 2019; David and Han 2004; Goede and Berg 2018;
Grisar and Meyer 2016; Hamann 2017; Köhn 2018; Mari and Poggesi 2013; Newbert
2007; Röhm 2018; Schmidt and Günther 2016). Its results are particularly useful
to evaluate and observe the connections between fields of study and related future
research developments. In order to be consistent with the traditional SLR process and
to enhance the quality of the review, namely to allow consolidating and synthesising
the identified academic research into a comprehensive framework, the following set
of criteria has been established, after which Table 1 shows the number of papers in
each step:

1. EBSCOhost and Scopus have been chosen as the research databases, as done by
others (e.g. Seuring and Müller 2008);
2. In order to establish the restriction criteria, only articles published in peer-reviewed
journals have been considered. So, books, chapters in books, conference proceed-
ings, working papers and other unpublished works have not been included. Only

123
194 F. Ricciotti

Table 1 Summary of selection Phase Description EBSCO Scopus Total

criteria
III All articles containing at least 2700 7251 9951
one of two primary keywords
in their abstracts
IV All articles containing at least 2204 5863 8067
one of 12 additional keywords
in their abstracts
V Remaining articles whose 346 97 443
abstracts are substantively
relevant
VI Exclusion of duplicate articles 346 23 369
VII Remaining articles whose text 39 16 55
is effectively relevant after the
qualitative assessment
Number of papers identified in VIII Snowballing technique 45 21 66
the different steps of the analysis

articles published in English have been considered. Also, in this paper, both con-
ceptual and empirical papers have been taken into consideration;
3. The substantive relevance of the articles’ focus on the Value Chain or the Value
Network has been guaranteed by requiring that all the selected articles contained,
at least, one of the following two keywords in their abstract or title: “Value Chain*”
OR “Value net*”;
4. The substantive relevance of the articles’ focus on management issues has been
ensured by requiring that all those articles selected in the previous phase also
contained, at least, one of the following additional 12 keywords in their abstract
or title: “management*” OR “organization*” OR “firm*” OR “business*” OR
“own*” OR “corporation*” OR “compan*” OR “entrep*” OR “venture*” OR
“strateg*” OR “innovatio*” OR “enter*” as previously done by other scholars
(e.g. De Vita et al. 2014);
5. All the articles selected in the previous phases have been scanned by reading their
abstracts to ensure substantive content;
6. Duplicate articles have been eliminated;
7. The full texts of the articles selected through the previous screening of abstracts
have been read, in order to control alignment between the chosen works and the
research objective;
8. Finally the snowballing technique has been adopted to support the results previ-
ously obtained. This technique allows the identification of new papers by searching
among the references of the papers already selected.
Finally, a sample of 66 papers emerged.

4 Results

The final sample of the analysis resulted in 66 articles, which are hereafter analysed
and categorized according to: (1) The distribution of articles published per period; and

123
From value chain to value network: a systematic… 195

Reconfiguration
from Value Value Network
Chain to Value structural integrity
Network (Allee) (Lusch et al.)

--- ---

Global Value Operation Value Network

Chain management evolution
(Anderson) (Rainbird) (Oksanen et al.)
---
---
From Value The Added Value Chain
Chain to Value Value Chain about intensive
Net (Bovel and (McPhee and firm (Sheehan
Martha) Wheeler)
Strategic and Stabell)
Design, ---
information ---
redesign Network Value Chain
management Value Learning and
and SWAT business Thinking
(Davenport Network adaptability in
in Value strategy (Simatupang
and Cronin) classification Value Network
Chain (Fine) (Håkansson et al.)
(Achrol) (Desai)
--- and Snehota)
Dynamic Value Chain
Intangible Service
theory of flexibility
assets and innovations
strategy (Zhang et al.)
Value Network (Gallego et
(Porter) al.)
(Allee)
3
2 2 Value
Chain
1 1 1
2 2 2 2 Value
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Network

1985 1988 1989 1991 1993 1997 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2017

Processes
Accounting Three Value The Reverse improvement
data (Hergert generic value system view Value Chain (Horne)
and Morris) configuration (Möller and (Jayaraman
models Svahn) and Luo)
(Stabell and Sustainable
---
Competitive Fjeldstad) Value Chain
Rise of (Fearne and
advantage strategic
through Value Chain Martinez)
Linkages and nets (Möller
informations optimization interrelationships ---
and Rajala)
(Porter and (Shapiro et al.) inside Value Business
Victor) Chain (Ensign) Nature and process
---
--- classification of management
Service
Activities trade strategic (Singh)
operation
off about value business network
strategy
configuration (Möller et al.) Logistic role in the
(Armistead
models --- Value Chain
and Clark)
(Fjeldstad and The (Bhatnagar and
Haanaes) importance of Teo)
--- Value Chain ---

The value- to Business Value Creating

creating network Model Network (Allee)
(Kothandaraman (Schweizer)
and Wilson)

Fig. 1 Conceptual papers identified. Inside the figure are highlighted the conceptual papers object of the
systematic literature review ordered according to a temporal logic

(2) The distribution of articles by subject in different time periods. After Porter’s first
contribution in 1985, many other scholars have followed and enriched the studies about
the Value Chain concept. In order to analyse these contributions, an historical approach

123
196 F. Ricciotti

has been used (Abatecola et al. 2012; Cristofaro 2017); six periods of 5 years have
been identified and the papers within the periods have been studied. Figure 1 shows
the conceptual papers identified (it is important to understand that Fig. 1 does not show
the paper’s title but the arguments inside) while Table 2 shows the case study and the
empirical papers identified; these papers together are discussed below.

4.1 From 1985 to 1990

After his 1985 seminal work “Competitive Advantage”, Michal Porter in the same year
talked about the Value Chain and the importance of IT in competition (Porter and Victor
1985). In the Value Chain the interdependent activities are connected by linkages and
form the value system, which includes the Value Chains of firms, suppliers, channel
and buyers. While Porter refers to information such as IT being essential to gain
competitive advantage, Davenport and Cronin (1988) look at information not only to
attain competitive advantage but also to analyse this driver in depth. They recognize
the importance of information in Value Chain creation and in competitive advantage,
but state that Strategic Information Management has, in particular, three different
aims: competitive advantage, search for stability and reduction of uncertainty (data
input and technological capacity have the scope to support these aims). The Value
Chain developed by Porter is a tool to combine internal data about the firm with
external data about the competitive environment, in order to decide how to allocate
resources. Unfortunately, it is not easy to find internal data about firms (Hergert and
Morris 1989). There are problems finding accounting data for Value Chain analysis
when: (1) The firm is not organized around a Strategic Business Unit; (2) Between
critical Value Chain activities and the responsibility centres of the accounting systems,
there is no correspondence; (3) It is not easy to identify what generates buyer value; (4)
Accounting systems do not collect information in order to optimize different activities;
and (5) The cost centre budgets are unable to reflect the performance of the activities.
These problems could be solved by better organization.

4.2 From 1991 to 1995

Porter (1991), in order to provide a dynamic theory of strategy, considers again the
motivations for why firms succeed or fail, taking into account the Value Chain together
with other concepts (game theoretic model, models of commitment under uncertainty,
resource-based view of the firm). He says that through the Value Chain it is possible
both to understand the cost position and source of buyers’ value and to analyse the
added costs, international strategy and diversification. Furthermore, he emphasizes the
importance of switching to Activity Based Costing and says that the sustainability of
competitive advantage depends on the number of competitive advantages inside the
Value Chaintherefore, the importance of sustainability is underlined.
Changing the point of view, in order to optimize the Value Chain analysis, Shapiro
et al. (1993) say that the time is ripe for increasing the number and scope of mathe-
matical programming. By adding IT directly into the support activities, they believe
that maths programming provides a rich and robust structure on which to analyse deci-

123
From value chain to value network: a systematic… 197

Table 2 Case study and empirical papers identified

Year Title Authors

1993 From value chain to value constellation: Normann R, Ramirez R

designing interactive strategy
1995 Exploiting the virtual value chain Rayport JF, Sviokla JJ
1996 What is strategy? Porter ME
1998 Social capital and value creation: the role of Tsai W, Ghoshal S
intrafirm networks
2000 Creating and managing a high-performance Dyer JH, Nobeoka K
knowledge-sharing network: the Toyota case
2001 Strategy and the internet Porter ME
2001 Reversing the value chain Webb J, Gile C
2003 Performance consequences of brand equity Baldauf A, Cravens KS, Binder G
management: evidence from organizations
in the value chain
2003 Value chain analysis in interfirm relationships: Dekker HC
a field study
2005 Benefiting from network position: firm Zaheer A, Bell GG
capabilities, structural holes and
performance
2006 From value chain to value network: insight Peppard J, Rylander A
from mobile operators
2008 Managing information flows for improved Bailey K, Francis M
value chain performance
2008 CSR in the global marketplace: towards Barin-Cruz L, Boehe DM
sustainable global value chains
2008 The tourism SMEs in the global value chains: Guzmán J, Moreno P, Tejada P
the case of Andalusia
2008 Creating flex-lean-agile value chain by Mohammed IR, Shankar R, Banwet DK
outsourcing: An ISM-based interventional
roadmap
2008 Use of global value chains by labor organizers Quan K
2008 Modelling the innovation value chain Roper S, Du J, Love JH
2008 Value chains, networks and clusters: Sturgeon T, Van Biesebroeck J, Gereffi G
reframing the global automotive industry
2009 Which way is “up” in upgrading? Trajectories Ponte S, Ewert J
of change in the value chain for South
African Wine
2011 Sources of structural power in the context of Kähkönen AK, Virolainen VL
value nets
2012 Environmental strategies, upgrading and De Marchi V, Di Maria E, Micelli S
competitive advantage in global value chains
2012 Improving value chain flexibility and Engelhardt-Nowitzki C
adaptability in build-to-order environments
2012 Creating sustainable businesses by reducing Kouwenhoven G, Nalla VR, von Losoncz TL
food waste: a value chain framework for
eliminating inefficiencies

123
198 F. Ricciotti

Table 2 continued

Year Title Authors

2012 National contexts matter: the coevolution of Manning S, Boons F, von Hager O, Reinecke J
sustainability standards in global value
chains
2012 Sustainable value chain analysis—a case Soosay C, Fearne A, Dent B
study of Oxford landing from “vine to dine”
2013 The greening of global value chains: insights De Marchi V, Di Maria E, Ponte S
from the furniture industry
2013 Market-based governance for sustainability in von Geibler J
value chains: conditions for successful
standard setting in the palm oil sector
2016 Using value chains to enhance innovation Lee HL, Schmidt G
2017 Value chain for next generation biofuels: Collier ZA, Connelly EB, Polmateer TL,
resilience and sustainability of the Lambert JH
production life cycle
2017 The application of value nets in food supply Zondag MM, Mueller EF, Ferrin BG
chains: a multiple case study
Inside the table are highlighted the empirical paper and case study object of the systematic literature review
ordered according to a temporal logic

sions, especially for integrated planning problems. A second benefit of using maths
programming models to optimize the Value Chain is that they provide a structure for
the way data should be organized for decision making, and a third benefit is their role
in budgeting and control. Connected with the IT context, the Virtual Value Chain has
underlined the importance of creating value in the virtual world; in fact the information
becomes a source of new revenue by improving relations with customers. The Geffen
Records case study (Rayport and Sviokla 1995) shows the use of information to create
value, and that digital assets can be used in an infinite number of transactions.
The Value Chain concept has also been adapted for service operations strategy, in
order to produce a framework for considering the service delivery needed to reach
strategic objectives, where the services organization focuses on resource allocation
(Armistead and Clark 1993). This clearly underlines the strategic nature of this tool,
as initially indicated by Porter (1985).
In the same year there is also another very important paper, about the transformation
in the way the value is created. In particular, through business innovation about roles,
relationships and organizational practices of the furniture business, it is possible to
create a global network. This is described using the case of IKEA, which progressed
from a small Swedish mail-order furniture operation into the world’s largest retailer
of home furnishings (Normann and Ramirez 1993).

4.3 From 1996 to 2000

Companies must choose where to position themselves. To do so they use tools such as
benchmarking, outsourcing, total quality management, time-based competition, part-
nering, re-engineering and change management; they must also be flexible to respond

123
From value chain to value network: a systematic… 199

rapidly to competitive and market changes (Porter 1996), as analysed in different types
of companies, including Japanese companies, Southwest Airlines, IKEA, Jiffy Cube
International, Vanguard Group, Neutrogena Corporation, etc.
Regarding the Value Network, one of the first contributions that is useful in under-
standing its classification has distinguished four network forms (Achrol 1997): (1)
Vertical Market Network, in which there is a central organization with the purpose
of monitoring and facing critical contingencies in the particular market; (2) Intermar-
ket Network, in which there are alliances among firms operating in several unrelated
industries and there is one financial institution or manufacturing firm representing
the others; (3) Opportunity Network, in which there is temporary firm’s alignment
around a specific project, and usually at the centre of the network there is a marketing
company; and (4) Internal Market Network, which strictly speaking does not repre-
sent an international business network. Another contribution has distinguished three
generic value configuration models; these are Value Chain, Value Network and Value
Shop (Stabell and Fjeldstad 1998). Among these there are differences about value cre-
ation logic (differences in value creation logic reflect different economics), primary
technology, primary activity categories, main interactivity relationship logic, primary
activity interdependence, key cost drivers, key value drivers, and business value sys-
tem structure. These first two contributions highlight how networks were created to
both collaborate on and solve problems.
The Value Network concept has also been approached by Verna Allee; her idea is
that business has to be reconfigured from the Value Chain organization, to the more
fluid structure of the Value Network, in order to really understand how value is cre-
ated. Although the Value Network is complex, every organization can be potentially
regarded as a Value Network, including government agencies and non-profits (Allee
2000). The need to pass from Value Chain to Value Network has also been highlighted
by David Bovel and Joseph Martha, who state that the Value Net is a dynamic network
of customer/supplier partnerships and information flows, is activated by real customer
demand, and is capable of responding rapidly and reliably to customer preferences.
At the same time it creates value for all of its participants and has the ability to build
a strong brand based on valuable services and to break down barriers to competi-
tion (Bovel and Martha 2000). Belonging to a network allows an improvement in
performance through an effective generation, transfer, recombination and sharing of
knowledge, as evidenced in the Toyota case (Dyer and Nobeoka 2000). Another impor-
tant paper talks about the steps needed to move from a traditional firm to a globally
competitive network, in other words how to pass from Value Chain to Global Value
Chain (Anderson 2000). The major differences between global and traditional firms
are: speed of response regarding global customers’ demand, intense investment in
knowledge of targeted global markets, investment in strategic alliances and extended
Value-Chain Cooperative Networks, which act cooperatively to understand changes
in tastes, competition and technology. The transition from Value Chain to Value Net-
work inevitably passes through globalization, but also the impact of the relationships
must be taken into consideration. The social capital, understood as social interaction,
trustworthiness and shared vision, helps to create value in the form of innovation, as
demonstrated by the research conducted in a multinational electronics company (Tsai
and Ghoshal 1998).

123
200 F. Ricciotti

4.4 From 2001 to 2005

As seen, IT has greatly influenced the value chain, in fact, through the Internet, com-
panies can better determine where to position themselves, as in the Dot-Coms case
study (Porter 2001). Among Value Chain activities, there are different linkages and
interrelationships that can be developed (Ensign 2001); these can be by participants
in the linkage, through the purpose of linkage and by the kind of strategic linkage.
Interfirm relationships have become a research topic of substantial importance; col-
laborating companies can exchange sensitive information, equally divide costs and
benefits, and can concentrate investments on specific assets, as in the Sainsbury retail
company case study (Dekker 2003).
It is important to quickly and continuously design and redesign the Value Chain, to
understand which of its parts are vulnerable, which parts are defensible, which alliances
have strategic sense and which threats are dangerous, in order to obtain the maximum
advantage and to gain competitive advantage (Fine 2002). Indeed, the environment
has become more turbulent than in the past and only through flexibility can firms face
this increasing uncertainly. Flexibility can be divided into two categories: primary
flexibility or capability, and secondary flexibility or competence (Zhang et al. 2002).
The flexibility of a company is directly related to its innovation degree and this also
depends on its belonging to a network. Indeed firms with superior network structures
are better able to exploit their internal innovative capabilities; as demonstrated in
the case study about the network of Canadian mutual fund firms (Zaheer and Bell
2005), membership of a network increases the innovation degree and consequently
the company’s performance.
The Value Chain also has the role of a framework for operations management,
through which it is possible to analyse a firm’s business model and redesign its pro-
cesses (Rainbird 2004). The connection between Value Chain and Business Model
has also been described in a paper by Schweizer, where in order to develop a Business
Model the importance of the Value Chain constellation is underlined in terms of how
value is created, how firms can attain competitive advantage and what differences
there are between the Value Chain of the single firm and that of the relative industry
(Schweizer 2005). Fjeldstad updates his work with Stabell on differences among Value
Chain, Value Network and Value Shop already seen in 1998, by focusing on different
trade-offs faced by the three configurations of business (Fjeldstad and Haanaes 2001).
In the Value Chain, firms create value by transforming input into output; value is added
in each step of the chain and the customers pay for the total quality of the product.
In the Value Network, firms create value not in transformation of the objects but in
their mediation between customers or places, and the customers pay both for access
to the network and for exchange via the network, while in the Value Shop firms cre-
ate value by solving unique problems for the customers by selling competencies and
approaches, and the customers pay for the solutions to their problems. The difference
between the Value Chain and Value Network is stressed and it becomes essential to
listen to what consumers want, as demonstrated by the Honda case study (Webb and
Gile 2001).

123
From value chain to value network: a systematic… 201

It is still underlined that in market relationships, the attention has moved from
individual firms to the Value-Creating Network, which is formed by key firms able to
create value for the end consumers. The basis of a Value-Creating Network has three
fundamental concepts: superior customer value, core competencies and relationships
(Kothandaraman and Wilson 2001). Different types of strategic nets require different
managerial skills and, in order to describe the differences between these, it is useful
to adopt a Value System view (Möller and Svahn 2003), based on the idea that each
product/service requires a set of value activities performed by a number of actors
forming a Value-Creating System. Taking forward his work on the different types of
strategic network, Möller presents new details about the nature and classification of the
strategic business network (Möller et al. 2005): Vertical Value Net, Horizontal Value
Net and Multidimensional Value Net. Networks increase relationships and value for
those who join them.
The brand concept acquires importance until it becomes the central asset of the
company. Through brand equity it is possible to predict performance; indeed, the
perceived brand equity has an effect on brand profitability, volume sales and perceived
customer value, as investigated in a survey about managers of Austrian organizations
(Baldauf et al. 2003).

4.5 From 2006 to 2010

The Added Value Chain, in considering a revisited definition of value (including

brand, reputation, social capital and goodwill), identifies three new primary activities
(supply chain management, product use, end of primary use) and one new support
activity (external network). The purpose of the Added Value Chain is to provide
managers with new activities useful for the firm to remain competitive in the actual
business environment (McPhee and Wheeler 2006). Another interesting concept is
the Reverse Value Chain, in which there is a reverse logistics perspective (Jayaraman
and Luo 2007). In order to recapture value, the process of planning, implementing
and controlling for materials, finished goods and information, flows from the point
of consumption to the point of origin. Reverse Value Chain activities have the scope
to recover used product from consumers for the purpose of recycling. To incorporate
reverse logistic within the Value Chain, it is important to keep in consideration that
returned products must be treated as perishable items. The importance of intangibles
and sustainability is therefore underlined.
The logistics role in enhancing the competitiveness of firms has also been stud-
ied (Bhatnagar and Teo 2009). Through the Value Chain framework it is possible to
explore two main problems that managers have to face: decision making complex-
ities in the extended chain (due to the fact that they have to make decisions about
players located in different geographical locations) and network coordination in dis-
persed chains (decisions on one entity that have an impact on the decisions made on
the other entities in the chain). Reputation is a fundamental driver in order to achieve
competitive advantage in the knowledge intensive firms, because of the recursive rela-
tionship between reputation and performance (Sheehan and Stabell 2010). The chains
are becoming wider and wider, but reputation helps reduce distances.

123
202 F. Ricciotti

During these years it is also possible to find interesting case studies on the Global
Value Chain, such as the case study on globalization of the Value Chain in the tourism
industry in Andalusia (Guzmán et al. 2008). Global economic conditions and their
transformation are some of the main challenges faced by the tourism industry; indeed,
tourism demands are becoming increasingly global, due to growing income levels,
European population ageing, saturated traditional destinations and changes in ways of
living. The concept of the Global Value Chain has changed several times as the nature
of economic relationships change, but remains a useful tool for strategic campaign
planning, which emphasizes the importance of thinking and organizing globally, as
shown in the case studies of the Kukdong Corporation and Tainan Enterprises (Quan
2008). Other highlights on globalization regard the importance of the environment and
social implications in the Sustainable Global Value Chain, as observed in the Jobek
case study (Barin-Cruz and Boehe 2008) and the profound transition from a series
of discrete national industries to a more integrated global industry, as emphasized
in the global automotive industry case study (Sturgeon et al. 2008). In this context
upgrading is the only way through which developing countries, firms or industries can
respond to the challenges of globalization and increased competition; in fact upgrading
is connected with making better products, improving processes and taking over new
functions. The product and processes upgrading is verified in the South African wine
industry case study (Ponte and Ewert 2009).
In this global context, performance and effectiveness of organizations operating
in a network are a consequence of how well the organization itself performs in its
interaction with its direct counterparts and how these counterparts manage their rela-
tionship with third parties (Håkansson and Snehota 2006). It is possible to identify
three generic types of network (Möller and Rajala 2007): (1) Current business nets;
(2) Business renewal nets; and (3) Emerging new business nets. Every type of network
requires different types of management in terms of coordination and control, in partic-
ular: (1) Current business nets are stable (with a well-defined Value System) and their
specified value activities, actors, technologies and business processes are well known;
(2) Business renewal nets have an established Value System and changes take place
through local and incremental modifications; and (3) Emerging new business nets have
an emerging Value System and changes are radical. The importance of relationships,
which are different according to the type of network, is underlined.
In order to correctly evaluate a company or business, it is necessary to give value to
the intangible assets, such as human knowledge, internal structures, ways of working,
reputation, and business relationships, in order to be able to negotiate them. Such
values to be negotiated must be converted; an example can be when professional
competence is sold in the form of advice. On the one hand, concerning knowledge, as in
a manufacturing firms case study in Ireland and Northern Ireland, through knowledge
sourcing, transformation and exploitation, it is possible to achieve innovation inside
the Value Chain (Roper et al. 2008). On the other hand, regarding information sharing,
as in the UK lamb case study, this is important but insufficient in order to improve
performance, as there are other vital key factors, such as trust, mutuality, openness,
extensive information, cost transparency, shared forecasting, and standard, reliable
processes and procedures (Bailey and Francis 2008).

123
From value chain to value network: a systematic… 203

If the Value Network on the one hand can create positive value, on the other hand
it can also lead to negative results, according to the values and intent of those who
are part of the network (Allee 2008). Organizations today face a more complex reality
than in the past (environment, markets, products, services, relationships), but through
a Value Network these can still create value. On the one hand the Internal Value Net-
works focus on the relationships between individuals within the working group and
between different working groups that make up the organization (production, research
and development, sales), while on the other hand, the External-Facing Value Networks
focus on relationships with suppliers, investors, business partners and customers. The
main indicators in a network are: resilience, value creation, brand, asset impact, reci-
procity, structural dependency and risk, relationship, agility and stability (Allee 2009).
Allee frequently emphasizes the importance both of intangible assets and of being part
of a network, through which it is possible to reduce the distance between human inter-
actions with practices and business processes. Agility, leanness and flexibility are
improved by outsourcing, as demonstrated in the Saudi Basic Industries Corporation
case study (Mohammed et al. 2008).
In order to co-create learning, creativity and adaptability, the actors of a Value
Network have to think together and transcend individual views (Desai 2010). It is
also important to keep in mind that the Value Network is under continuous change;
the factors able to drive that change are demand growth, production and diffusion of
knowledge. It is possible to distinguish two kinds of change, incremental and radical;
while incremental is the main mode regarding how networks change, the radical mode
is possible but unusual (Oksanen et al. 2010). Derived from the Value Chain Think-
ing, the Value Network combines the advantages of a traditional network with the
Value Chain activities. Many networks have emerged as a result of industry evolution,
and at the same time, many industries have emerged from the evolution of existing
Value Networks. The Value Network has structural integrity and its actors are held
together because each organization makes available competences and relationships
and can benefit from shared information (Lusch et al. 2010). Due to digitalization and
dematerialization of products, services, supply and demand, the Value Chain becomes
inappropriate for analysing many industries, while the Value Network appears more
suited to the new economy organizations, as can be seen from the case study about
mobile operators (Peppard and Rylander 2006).

4.6 From 2011 to 2017

The sustainable Value Chain is a framework that shows how the Value Chain can be
adapted to include an additional perspective, which incorporates shared value and col-
laboration, involving the environment and social impact (Fearne and Martinez 2012).
The objectives of the sustainable value chain can be summarized as: (1) to eliminate
inefficiencies and waste, to create new profitable business and to contribute to a sus-
tainable economic future, as underlined by the food waste case study concerning the
dairy value chain in India and vegetable value chain in Netherlands (Kouwenhoven
et al. 2012); (2) to pursue the alignment between the allocation of resources and con-
sumer preferences, the assessment of polluting emissions, effectiveness and efficiency,

123
204 F. Ricciotti

as can be seen from the case study about a south Australian wine company (Soosay
et al. 2012); (3) to promote an evolution towards more sustainable ways of production
and sourcing, as observable from the global coffee industry case study (Manning et al.
2012); (4) to implement greening strategies in order to remain competitive, as in the
case study concerning the home-furnishing industry in Italy (De Marchi et al. 2012)
and by the case study concerning IKEA and Valcucine (De Marchi et al. 2013); (5)
to pursue sustainable development by paying attention to natural resources, environ-
ment and social implications, as observable in the palm oil case study (von Geibler
2013) and in the bio fuels case study (Collier et al. 2017). The sustainability concept
is strictly connected to the globalization concept, as underlined by several papers (De
Marchi et al. 2012, 2013; Manning et al. 2012); in particular, sustainability is a means
to be competitive on a global level.
The Value Chain can be connected to the concept of business process management,
in order to achieve competitive advantage (Singh 2012); the organization of the Value
Chain’s activities has to be constantly oriented towards an improvement in critical
competencies and capabilities, absorbing new technologies and combining existing
ones. Through business process management, it is possible: (1) to operate faster, reli-
ably and efficiently; (2) to increase flexibility and agility; (3) to improve customer
service; and (4) to provide information in order to make better decisions. Good orga-
nization of the activities carried out is essential to obtain competitive advantage. In
the volatile markets, the ability to quickly and economically act is fundamental for
companies; this requires flexibility and adaptability, in terms of internal production
processes and external supply flows, as demonstrated in the case study on Austrian
firms (Engelhardt-Nowitzki 2012).
Service innovation plays a fundamental role in obtaining competitiveness and
growth (Gallego et al. 2013); through collaboration, firms can exploit knowledge
and remain competitive. Regarding collaboration, it is also necessary to consider the
structural power of buyers and suppliers in determining power relations, as seen in the
Finnish food industry case study (Kähkönen and Virolainen 2011) and the fact that
collaboration tends to evolve into collaborative Value Nets, as seen in the global food
supply chain case study (Zondag et al. 2017).
The Value Chain can be used to identify and prioritize process improvement (Horne
2014), by considering a firm as composed of separate and interrelated Value Chains,
each with a life cycle and cost profile. In order to select the processes to be improved, it
is necessary to drill down into the business units, with the scope to find cost overruns.
To achieve innovation and improvement, organization and collaboration are needed.
The Value Chain is important not only for cost reduction but also for the development of
new products and services, as in the Apple and Amazon case studies (Lee and Schmidt
2016). To innovate, flexibility is necessary and this also depends on the use of external
suppliers and the outsourcing of some components, as Apple has done, by relying on
external companies for the supply of software applications, then configuring its system
to facilitate this supply. Amazon also has its own approach; for example, with regard
to the physical distribution of goods, it collaborates with other large retailers such as
Eddie Bauer and with producers such as Procter and Gamble, to deliver directly to
customers from the retailer’s or producer’s warehouse, without going through Amazon
warehouses. Another example regarding Amazon is the collaboration with the United

123
From value chain to value network: a systematic… 205

States postal service for the implementation of Sunday delivery. Unlike Google, which
produces its services internally, Amazon relies on providers such as Sinnex to build
its server network. It is possible to say that Amazon implements innovations through
an extended Value Chain.
After several studies concerning the Value Chain or the Value Network, the object
of study has been Value Chain Thinking—this is the broader vision of value cre-
ation. A problem is no longer seen as separate but as part of a network, as there is a
transition from the perspective of a single player to the perspective of many players,
considering the relationships. Value Chain Thinking is necessary for several reasons:
it takes into consideration a generally longer time period compared to individuals; it
aims to create a flexible plan to capture business opportunities; it aims to be forward-
looking; it increases the benefits and encourages learning activities; it is cyclical and
non-linear; and, it offers sustainability and profitability. Value Chain members should
work together to align costs, risks and revenues. Companies become nodes along the
supply chain; rather than looking at the single Value Chain, the Value Network is taken
into consideration, then the focus is shifted from an internal to an inter-organizational
perspective (Simatupang et al. 2017).

5 Discussions

The main reason for this study is to highlight the areas in which the Value Chain has
been placed over time and where it has been put in comparison to the Value Network,
indicating the advantages that the latter has today in representing the value creation
offered by a company (Allee 2000; Bovel and Martha 2000; Fjeldstad and Haanaes
2001; Stabell and Fjeldstad 1998). Starting from the birth of the Value Chain (Porter
1985), as a tool able to think strategically about the business activities, within which
IT has a fundamental importance, over time there have been several studies that can be
aggregated into macro trends that are useful to identify the evolution that took place
throughout the period considered; these trends are represented in Fig. 2.
The first evidence identified is that products become perishable and the concept of
recycling becomes important; attention is paid both to the social impact and to the
shared value of the activities carried out, not only to the achievement of performance.
It becomes necessary to have a sustainable perspective in order both to obtain a sus-
tainable competitive advantage and to survive in the environment; for this purpose, the
will of governance is fundamental (Collier et al. 2017; De Marchi et al. 2012; Fearne
and Martinez 2012; Jayaraman and Luo 2007; Porter 1991; von Geibler 2013). So the
first main finding along which the evolution passes can be identified as Sustainability.
A further evidence identified is that competition becomes global and consequently
also the boundaries of the Value Chain tend to widen. Surviving and pursuing com-
petitive advantage become more difficult. Investments in knowledge increase, so it
is necessary to adapt to competitors’ technologies, to make strategic alliances, to be
connected with other companies and to improve internal processes (Anderson 2000;
Horne 2014; Ponte and Ewert 2009; Quan 2008; Sturgeon et al. 2008; Zhang et al.
2002). Therefore a second trajectory along which the evolution travels is that the
companies become Global.

123
206 F. Ricciotti

SUSTAINABILITY
GLOBAL
VALUE COLLABORATION VALUE
INTANGIBLE ASSETS
CHAIN NETWORK
FLEXIBILITY
AGILITY

DIGITALIZATION

DEMATERIALIZATION

Fig. 2 Main topics for the transition from the value chain to the value network. The figure highlights the
reasons why the Value Network has become more representative than the Value Chain, with regard to the
value created within companies

A direct consequence of becoming global and undertaking strategic alliances, is

entering into competitive networks. There is a shift from the individual firm to the
Value-Creating Network; the competition moves to the network level, the interactions
between companies increase, the exchange of information increases, the partnerships
increase, and it is necessary to adapt to working and learning with multi-perspective
players (Dekker 2003; Desai 2010; Fjeldstad and Haanaes 2001; Håkansson and Sne-
hota 2006; Horne 2014; Kähkönen and Virolainen 2011; Lusch et al., 2010; Oksanen
et al. 2010; Simatupang et al. 2017; Zondag et al. 2017). It is possible to state that
a third key for interpreting the results is that Collaboration becomes fundamental,
because only by collaborating can companies remain competitive.
The search for competitive advantage is then enriched with new elements; a funda-
mental driver linked to the company’s performance becomes the brand’s reputation,
which represents an asset to be valued and defended. The concepts of knowledge,
social capital, stability, human skills and goodwill are equally important. Membership
of a network leads to increasing the importance of partnerships with customers and
suppliers; the relationships that a company has become assets that need to be eval-
uated. More generally, being part of a network gives businesses reliability towards
consumers (Allee 2000, 2008, 2009; Bailey and Francis 2008; Baldauf et al. 2003;
Bovel and Martha 2000; McPhee and Wheeler 2006; Roper et al. 2008; Sheehan and
Stabell 2010). The fourth main outcome that is identified is represented by Intangi-
ble Assets, which increasingly explain the value of modern companies and, if not
considered, can represent a great loss of value.
Another trend along which it is possible to aggregate the results obtained is directly
linked to the outcome of intangible assets. Within the networks, thanks to digitalization
and the connection between the various companies, it is possible to better face problems
related to demand growth and supplier uncertainty; these in fact are equipped with high
adaptability and can represent any type of organization (Allee 2000; Bovel and Martha

123
From value chain to value network: a systematic… 207

2000; Desai 2010; Engelhardt-Nowitzki 2012; Lee and Schmidt 2016; Oksanen et al.
2010; Porter 1996; Simatupang et al. 2017; Singh 2012; Zhang et al. 2002). It is
possible to translate these characteristics into the concept of Flexibility, thanks to
which companies can choose the best business opportunities.
The last finding identified, along which the papers taken into consideration have
been developed, is directly connected to the theme of intangible assets and above
all, to the theme of flexibility. A feature that is increasingly present in successful
organizations, is the ability to have a high speed of response to customer expectations
and to technological change, identifying the right alliances and the threats (Bovel and
Martha 2000; Fine 2002; Mohammed et al. 2008; Porter 2001; Singh 2012). This
ability can be translated into the concept of Agility.
The limitation of this study, however, is the lack of data analysis; in fact the concep-
tual papers, case studies and empirical papers taken into consideration are analysed
only from a qualitative point of view.

6 Conclusion and implications

The Value Chain has been indicated by Porter as a tool to understand how firms
create, sustain and maximize value for their customers (Porter 1985); over time it
has been enriched with new elements and compared to the wider concept of Value
Network, indicating the latter as more representative of how value is created today
within companies (Allee 2000; Bovel and Martha 2000; Fjeldstad and Haanaes 2001;
Normann and Ramirez 1993; Peppard and Rylander 2006; Stabell and Fjeldstad 1998).
The most obvious evolution is therefore the transition from the concept of Value Chain
to the concept of Value Network; in fact because of digitalization and dematerialization,
the competition has changed, as today individual firms do not compete but networks
of companies do, so to survive it is necessary to be part of a network. Porter had
already indicated the connection of the Value Chain to its reference environment; he
has indicated it to be the Value System, and over time this connection has increased.
But what are the reasons for the transition from the Value Chain to the Value Network?
Through the study of the papers in this work, six main reasons have been identified.
The first reason is that the concept of sustainability is affirmed, so it is no longer
enough just to have high performance but it is also necessary to have a low environmen-
tal impact, in line with the general concept of sustainability (Brundtland Commission
1987); companies that operate according to a sustainability perspective are also those
that are more likely to survive in the long-term. The second reason is that the com-
petition becomes global; the distances are reduced and therefore there is the need to
be more efficient in order not to be expelled from the market due to the new com-
petitors emerging from globalization. The third reason is that today companies need
to collaborate to survive; the skills within the firm are often not sufficient to meet the
ever-increasing needs of customers. The fourth reason is that in the digital age, the
value within companies and in exchanges in general, is represented more and more by
what is intangible and less and less by what is tangible; so, the survival of companies
passes through the valorisation of intangible assets. The fifth and sixth motivations
are probably the results of the first four, but due to their importance they deserve a

123
208 F. Ricciotti

separate mention. Today companies need above all to have flexibility and agility; they
must have a light structure to deal with different types of problems and must be able to
do this quickly. A network provides the collaboration of other companies that are part
of it; it gives a global footprint because it is the same network that lends itself to being
global, it helps to operate in a sustainable manner by sharing standards and policies, it
is able to convert intangible assets into marketable assets, and finally it increases the
flexibility and agility of companies thanks to its organizational structure. Therefore, it
is plausible to believe that the trend from the Value Chain to the Value Network will
continue over time, increasingly expanding the spectrum of companies involved and
will accelerate with the increase in digitalization and dematerialization processes.
The implications of this paper from an academic point of view are that: (1) it adds to
the studied theory of the shift from the Value Chain to the Value Network (Allee 2000;
Bovel and Martha, 2000; Fjeldstad and Haanaes 2001; Normann and Ramirez 1993;
Peppard and Rylander 2006; Stabell and Fjeldstad 1998), a systematization of the pro-
duced contributions and their historical evolutionary interpretation; and (2) it identifies
mechanisms through which it is possible to explain the passage from the Value Chain
to the Value Network. Indeed, as explained above, six mechanisms have been identi-
fied for which the Value Network is better able than the Value Chain, to represent how
companies can survive the competition, how they can gain a sustainable competitive
advantage and how value is today created within companies. These are: Sustainability;
Globalization; Collaboration; Intangible Assets; Flexibility; and Agility. Compared to
past literature, this paper combines the motivations for the transition from the Value
Chain to the Value Network and highlights the connections between them that have
occurred in the last 30 years but never been studied together until now.
The implications of this paper from a practical point of view are that: (1) it could
be useful to decide which tool to use in managing a company, for example a CEO
of a company can decide to improve profitability by studying the Value Chain of his
company or his Value Network; (2) it could be useful to decide whether to do business
inside or outside a network, for example a CEO of a company can decide what and
how many strategic alliances to undertake; and (3) it can help to understand which
are the levers that today allow the pursuit of a sustainable competitive advantage, for
example a CEO of a company can decide to monitor the six mechanisms identified to
increase the performance of that company.
Some further research suggestions about the trend from Value Chain to Value Net-
work could be the observation of the performance of some companies before and
after becoming part of a network, through the study of the profitability ratios or net
revenues and in which sectors of the economy at national and global level, companies
have created more networks in the last 30 years.

References
Abatecola G, Cafferata R, Poggesi S (2012) Arthur Stinchcombe’s liability of newness: contribution and
impact of the construct. J Manag Hist 18:402–418. https://doi.org/10.1108/17511341211258747
Abatecola G, Caputo A, Mari M, Poggesi S (2013a) Real estate management: past, present and future
research directions. Int J Glob Small Bus 5:9–113. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGSB.2013.050485

123
From value chain to value network: a systematic… 209

Abatecola G, Mandarelli G, Poggesi S (2013b) The personality factor: how top management teams
make decisions. a literature review. J Manag Gov 17:1073–1100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-
011-9189-y
Achrol RS (1997) Changes in the theory of interorganizational relations in marketing: toward a network
paradigm. J Acad Mark Sci 25:56–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070397251006
Allee V (2000) Reconfiguring the value network. J Bus Strategy 21:36–39. https://doi.org/10.1108/
eb040103
Allee V (2008) Value network analysis and value conversion of tangible and intangible assets. J Intellect
Cap 9:5–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930810845777
Allee V (2009) Value creating networks: organizational issues and challenges. Learn Organ 6:427–442.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470910993918
Anderson SC (2000) The globally competitive firm: functional integration value logistics global marketing
and business college strategic support. Compet Rev Int Bus J 10:33–45. https://doi.org/10.1108/
eb046397
Armistead CG, Clark G (1993) Resource activity mapping: the value chain in service operations strategy.
Serv Ind J 13:221–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069300000070
Äyväri A, Möller K (2008) Understanding relational and network capabilities–a critical review. Paper
presented at the 24th IMP—conference. Uppsala, Sweden
Bailey K, Francis M (2008) Managing information flows for improved value chain performance. Int J Prod
Econ 111:2–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.11.017
Baldauf A, Cravens KS, Binder G (2003) Performance consequences of brand equity management:
evidence from organizations in the value chain. J Prod Brand Manag 12:220–236. https://doi.org/10.
1108/10610420310485032
Barin-Cruz L, Boehe DM (2008) CSR in the global marketplace: towards sustainable global value chains.
Manag Decis 46:1187–1209. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740810901381
Bhatnagar R, Teo CC (2009) Role of logistics in enhancing competitive advantage. Int J Phys Distrib
Logist Manag 39:202–226. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030910951700
Bovel D, Martha J (2000) From supply chain to value net. J Bus Strategy 21:24–28. https://doi.org/10.
1108/eb040101
Brundtland Commission (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Bush SR, Oosterveer P, Bailey M, Mol APJ (2015) Sustainability governance of chains and networks: a
review and future outlook. J Clean Prod 107:8–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014
Cafferata R, Abatecola G, Poggesi S (2009) Revisiting Stinchcombe’s liability of newness: a systematic
literature review. Int J Glob Small Bus 3:374–392. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGSB.2009.032258
Collier ZA, Connelly EB, Polmateer TL, Lambert JH (2017) Value chain for next generation biofuels:
resilience and sustainability of the production life cycle. Environ Syst Decis 37:22–33. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10669-016-9618-1
Cristofaro M (2017) Herbert Simon’s bounded rationality: its historical evolution in management and
cross-fertilizing contribution. J Manag Hist 23:170–190. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMH-11-2016-0060
Cristofaro M (2019) The role of affect in management decisions. A systematic review. Eur Manag J 37:6–17
Davenport L, Cronin B (1988) Strategic information management: forging the value chain. Int J Inf Manag
8:25–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/0268-4012(88)90005-9
David RJ, Han SK (2004) A systematic assessment of the empirical support for transaction cost economics.
Strateg Manag J 25:39–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.359
De Marchi V, Di Maria E, Micelli S (2012) Environmental strategies, upgrading and competitive advantage
in global value chains. Bus Strategy Environ 1:1. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1738
De Marchi V, Di Maria E, Ponte S (2013) The greening of global value chains: insights from the furniture
industry. Compet Change 17:299–318. https://doi.org/10.1179/1024529413Z.00000000040
De Vita L, Mari M, Poggesi S (2014) Women entrepreneurs in and from developing countries: evidences
from the literature. Eur Manag J 32:451–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.07.009
Dekker HC (2003) Value chain analysis in interfirm relationships: a field study. Manag Account Res
14:1–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1044-5005(02)00067-7
Desai DA (2010) Co-creating learning: insights from complexity theory. Learn Organ 17:388–403. https://
doi.org/10.1108/09696471011059796
Donovan J, Franzel S, Cunha M, Gyau A, Mithöfer D (2015) Guides for value chain development: a com-
parative review. J Agribus Dev Emerg Econ 5:2–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/JADEE-07-2013-0025

123
210 F. Ricciotti

Dyer JH, Nobeoka K (2000) Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: the
Toyota case. Strateg Manag J 21:345–367. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200003)21:3%
3c345:AID-SMJ96%3e3.0.CO;2-N
Engelhardt-Nowitzki C (2012) Improving value chain flexibility and adaptability in build-to-order envi-
ronments. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 42:318–337. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600031211231317
Ensign PC (2001) Value chain analysis and competitive advantage: assessing strategic linkages and
interrelationships. J Gen Manag 27:18–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/030630700102700102
Fearne A, Martinez MG (2012) Dimensions of sustainable value chains: implications for value chain
analysis. Supply Chain Manag Int J 17:575–581. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541211269193
Fine CH (2002) Rapid-response capability in value-chain design. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 43:69–75
Fjeldstad ØD, Haanaes K (2001) Strategy tradeoffs in the knowledge and network economy. Bus Strategy
Rev 12:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8616.00160
Gallego J, Rubalcaba L, Hipp C (2013) Services and organisational innovation: the right mix for value
creation. Manag Decis 51:1117–1134. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2012-0446
Goede J, Berg N (2018) The family in the center of international assignments: a systematic review and
future research agenda. Manag Rev Q 68:77–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-017-0134-2
Grisar C, Meyer M (2016) Use of simulation in controlling research: a systematic literature review for
German-speaking countries. Manag Rev Q 66:117–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-015-0117-0
Guzmán J, Moreno P, Tejada P (2008) The tourism SMEs in the global value chains: the case of Andalusia.
Serv Bus 2:187–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-008-0034-6
Hahn I, Kodó K (2017) Literature review of the value grid model. DiVa—portal.org http://www.diva-
portal.org/smash/record.jsf?aq2=%5B%5B%5D%5D&c=3&af=%5B%5D&searchType=SIMPLE&
sortOrder2=title_sort_asc&query=Literature+review+of+the+value+grid+model&language=en&
pid=diva2%3A1079220&aq=%5B%5B%5D%5D&sf=all&aqe=%5B%5D&sortOrder=author_sort_
asc&onlyFullText=false&noOfRows=50&dswid=-896. Accessed 6 May 2017
Håkansson H, Snehota I (2006) No business is an island: the network concept of business strategy. Scand
J Manag 22:256–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2006.10.005
Hamann PM (2017) Towards a contingency theory of corporate planning: a systematic literature review.
Manag Rev Q 67:227–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-017-0132-4
Hergert M, Morris D (1989) Accounting data for value chain analysis. Strateg Manag J 10:175–188. https://
doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250100207
Horne JR (2014) Are you seeing the big picture in selecting your improvement projects? TQM J 26:658–666.
https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-08-2013-0094
Jayaraman V, Luo Y (2007) Creating competitive advantages through new value creation: a reverse logistics
perspective. Acad Manag Perspect 21:56–73
Kähkönen AK, Virolainen VL (2011) Sources of structural power in the context of value nets. J Purch
Supply Manag 17:109–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2011.01.001
Köhn A (2018) The determinants of startup valuation in the venture capital context: a systematic review
and avenues for future research. Manag Rev Q 68:3–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-017-0131-5
Kothandaraman P, Wilson DT (2001) The future of competition. Ind Mark Manag 30:379–389. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0019-8501(00)00152-8
Kouwenhoven G, Nalla VR, von Losoncz TL (2012) Creating sustainable businesses by reducing food waste:
a value chain framework for eliminating inefficiencies. Int Food AgriBus Manag Rev 15:119–137
Lee HL, Schmidt G (2016) Using value chains to enhance innovation. Prod Oper Manag 26:617–632.
https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12665
Lusch RF, Vargo SL, Tanniru M (2010) Service, value networks and learning. J Acad Mark Sci 38:19–31.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-008-0131-z
Manning S, Boons F, von Hager O, Reinecke J (2012) National contexts matter: the coevolution of
sustainability standards in global value chains. Ecol Econ 83:197–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2011.08.029
Mari M, Poggesi S (2013) Servicescape cues and customer behaviour: a systematic literature review and
research agenda. Serv Ind J 33:171–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2011.613934
McPhee W, Wheeler D (2006) Making the case for the added-value chain. Strategy Leadersh 34:39–46.
https://doi.org/10.1108/10878570610676873
Mohammed IR, Shankar R, Banwet DK (2008) Creating flex-lean-agile value chain by outsourcing:
an ISM-based interventional roadmap. Bus Process Manag J 14:338–389. https://doi.org/10.1108/
14637150810876670

123
From value chain to value network: a systematic… 211

Möller K, Rajala A (2007) Rise of strategic nets—new modes of value creation. Ind Mark Manag
36:895–908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2007.05.016
Möller K, Svahn S (2003) Managing strategic nets: a capability perspective. Mark Theory 3:209–234.
https://doi.org/10.1177/14705931030032002
Möller K, Rajala A, Svahn S (2005) Strategic business nets—their type and management. J Bus Res
58:1274–1284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.05.002
Newbert SL (2007) Empirical research on the resource–based view of the firm: an assessment and
suggestions for future research. Strateg Manag J 28:121–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.573
Normann R, Ramirez R (1993) From value chain to value constellation: designing interactive strategy.
Harv Bus Rev 71:65–77
Oksanen P, Hallikas J, Sissonen H (2010) The evolution of value networks. Int J Netw Virtual Organ
7:381–398
Peppard J, Rylander A (2006) From value chain to value network: insight from mobile operators. Eur
Manag J 24:128–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2006.03.003
Ponte S, Ewert J (2009) Which way is “up” in upgrading? Trajectories of change in the value chain for
South African wine. World Dev 37:1637–1650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.03.008
Porter ME (1985) Competitive advantage, creating and sustaining superior performance. Free Press, New
York
Porter ME (1991) Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strateg Manag J 12:95–117. https://doi.org/10.
1002/smj.4250121008
Porter ME (1996) What is strategy? Harv Bus Rev 74:61–78
Porter ME (2001) Strategy and the internet. Harv Bus Rev. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSSSM.2007.4280087
Porter ME, Victor EM (1985) How information gives you competitive advantage. Harv Bus Rev 63:149–160
Quan K (2008) Use of global value chains by labor organizers. Compet Change 12:89–104. https://doi.
org/10.1179/102452907X264548
Rainbird M (2004) A framework for operations management: the value chain. Int J Phys Distrib Logist
Manag 34:337–345. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030410533628
Rayport JF, Sviokla JJ (1995) Exploiting the virtual value chain. Harv Bus Rev 73:14–24
Röhm P (2018) Exploring the landscape of corporate venture capital: a systematic review of the
entrepreneurial and finance literature. Manag Rev Q 68:279–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-
018-0140-z
Roper S, Du J, Love JH (2008) Modelling the innovation value chain. Res Policy 37:961–977. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.005
Schmeisser B (2013) A systematic review of literature on offshoring of value chain activities. J Int Manag
19:390–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2013.03.011
Schmidt U, Günther T (2016) Public sector accounting research in the higher education sector: a systematic
literature review. Manag Rev Q 66:235–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-016-0120-0
Schweizer L (2005) Concept and evolution of business models. J Gen Manag 31:37–56. https://doi.org/10.
1177/030630700503100203
Seuring S, Müller M (2008) From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply
chain management. J Clean Prod 16:1699–1710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.020
Shapiro JM, Singhal VM, Wagner SN (1993) Optimizing the value chain. Interfaces 23:102–117. https://
doi.org/10.1287/inte.23.2.102
Sheehan NT, Stabell CB (2010) Reputation as a driver in activity level analysis: reputation and competitive
advantage in knowledge intensive firms. Corp Reput Rev 13:198–208. https://doi.org/10.1057/crr.
2010.19
Simatupang TM, Piboonrungroj P, Williams SJ (2017) The emergence of value chain thinking. Int J Value
Chain Manag 8:40–57. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJVCM.2017.082685
Singh PK (2012) Management of business processes can help an organization achieve competitive
advantage. Int Manag Rev 8:19–26
Soosay C, Fearne A, Dent B (2012) Sustainable value chain analysis—a case study of Oxford landing from
“vine to dine”. Supply Chain Manag Int J 17:68–77. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541211212212
Stabell CB, Fjeldstad ØD (1998) Configuring value for competitive advantage: on chains, shops and
networks. Strateg Manag J 19:413–437. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199805)19:5%
3c413:AID-SMJ946%3e3.0.CO;2-C
Sturgeon T, Van Biesebroeck J, Gereffi G (2008) Value chains, networks and clusters: reframing the global
automotive industry. J Econ Geogr 8:297–312. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbn007

123
212 F. Ricciotti

Tsai W, Ghoshal S (1998) Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks. Acad Manag
J 41:464–476. https://doi.org/10.2307/257085
von Geibler J (2013) Market-based governance for sustainability in value chains: conditions for successful
standard setting in the palm oil sector. J Clean Prod 56:39–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.
08.027
Webb J, Gile C (2001) Reversing the value chain. J Bus Strategy 22:13–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb040151
Webster J, Watson RT (2002) Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS
Q 6:13–22
Zaheer A, Bell GG (2005) Benefiting from network position: firm capabilities, structural holes, and
performance. Strateg Manag J 26:809–825. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.482
Zhang Q, Vonderembse MA, Lim JS (2002) Value chain flexibility: a dichotomy of competence and
capability. Int J Prod Res 40:561–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540110091695
Zondag MM, Mueller EF, Ferrin BG (2017) The application of value nets in food supply chains: a multiple
case study. Scand J Manag 33:199–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2017.10.002

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations

123