Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multiple stakeholder market orientation: a service-dominant logic perspective of the market orientation paradigm

  • Theory/Conceptual
  • Published:
AMS Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to propose a comprehensive conceptualization of the market orientation construct that acknowledges the role of salient stakeholders in value co-creation. The proposed multiple stakeholder market orientation (MSMO) construct is a more broadly defined conceptualization of what it means to implement the marketing concept in a multi-stakeholder business environment. The construct is developed within the context of prevailing theoretical perspectives including the service-dominant logic of marketing, stakeholder theory, and the market orientation paradigm. Specifically, the construct is developed as an interconnected operant resource consisting of a stakeholder orientation, a systems orientation, and a shared value orientation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 507–525.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Marketing Association (AMA): Marketing Power. (2017). Dictionary. Retrieved from: http://www.marketingpower.com/AboutAMA/Pages/DefinitionofMarketing.aspx

  • Bagozzi, R. P. (1975). Marketing as exchange. Journal of Marketing, 39(4), 32–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballantyne, D., Frow, P., Varey, R. J., & Payne, A. (2011). Value propositions as communication practice: taking a wider view. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 202–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm-resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bharadwaj, N., & Dong, Y. (2014). Toward further understanding the market-sensing capability-value creation relationship. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), 799–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, D. (2008). Stakeholder marketing: Beyond the four Ps and the customer. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 27(1), 113–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, G. S. (2017). Market orientation: reflections on field-based, discovery-oriented research. AMS Review, 7(1), 13–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, J. J., Smith, J. S., Gleim, M. R., Ramirez, E., & Martinez, J. D. (2011). Green marketing strategies: an examination of stakeholders and the opportunities they present. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 158–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. S. (1994a). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. S. (1994b). Continuous learning about markets. California Management Review, 36(4), 9–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dembek, K., Singh, P., & Bhakoo, V. (2016). Literature review of shared value: a theoretical concept or a management buzzword? Journal of Business Ethics, 137(2), 231–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dentoni, D., Bitzer, V., & Pascucci, S. (2016). Cross-sector partnerships and the co-creation of dynamic capabilities for stakeholder orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(1), 35–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review, 29(1), 65–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edvardsson, B., Kleinaltenkamp, M., Tronvoll, B., McHugh, P., & Windahl, C. (2014). Institutional logics matter when coordinating resource integration. Marketing Theory, 14(3), 291–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P., Raggio, R. D., & Thompson, S. M. (2016). Service network value co-creation: Defining the roles of the generic actor. Industrial Marketing Management, 56, 51–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El-Ansary, A., Shaw, E. H., & Lazer, W. (2018). Marketing’s identity crisis: insights from the history of marketing thought. AMS Review, 8(1–2), 5–17.

  • Ferrell, O. C., Gonzalez-Padron, T. L., Hult, G. T. M., & Maignan, I. (2010). From market orientation to stakeholder orientation. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 29(1), 93–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, A., & Miles, S. (2006). Stakeholders: Theory and practice. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frow, P., & Payne, A. (2011). A stakeholder perspective of the value proposition concept. European Journal of Marketing, 45(1–2), 223–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Castro, R., & Aguilera, R. V. (2015). Incremental value creation and appropriation in a world with multiple stakeholders. Strategic Management Journal, 36(1), 137–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, E. (2014). Beyond stakeholder utility function: stakeholder capability in the value creation process. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(4), 489–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gebhardt, G. F., Carpenter, G. S., & Sherry, J. F. J. (2006). Creating a market orientation: a longitudinal, multifirm, grounded analysis of cultural transformation. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Padron, T. L. (2017). Ethics in the sharing economy: creating a legitimate marketing channel. Journal of Marketing Channels, 24(1/2), 84–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Padron, T. L., & Nason, R. W. (2009). Market responsiveness to societal interests. Journal of Macromarketing, 29(4), 392–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Padron, T. L., Hult, G. T. M., & Ferrell, O. C. (2016). A stakeholder marketing approach to sustainable business, in marketing in and for a sustainable society: Emerald.

  • Graves, S. B., & Waddock, S. A. (2000). Beyond built to last ... Stakeholder relations in "built-to-last" companies. Business and Society Review, 105(4), 393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenley, G. E., & Foxall, G. R. (1997). Multiple stakeholder orientation in UK companies and the implications for company performance. Journal of Management Studies, 34(2), 260–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenley, G. E., Hooley, G. J., & Rudd, J. M. (2005). Market orientation in a multiple stakeholder orientation context: implications for marketing capabilities and assets. Journal of Business Research, 58(11), 1483–1494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gundlach, G. T., & Wilkie, W. L. (2010). Stakeholder marketing: why "stakeholder" was omitted from the American Marketing Association's official 2007 definition of marketing and why the future is bright for stakeholder marketing. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 29(1), 89–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillebrand, B., Driessen, P., & Koll, O. (2015). Stakeholder marketing: theoretical foundations and required capabilities. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(4), 411–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: what's the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hult, G. T. M. (2011a). Market-focused sustainability: Market orientation plus! Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 1–6.4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hult, G. T. M. (2011b). Toward a theory of the boundary-spanning marketing organization and insights from 31 organization theories. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(4), 509–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hult, G. T. M., & Ketchen, D. J. (2017). Disruptive marketing strategy. AMS Review, 7(1), 20–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hult, G. T. M., Mena, J. A., Ferrell, O. C., & Ferrell, L. (2011). Stakeholder marketing: a definition and conceptual framework. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 1, 44–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D. (1976). The nature and scope of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 40(3), 17–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurley, R. F., & Hult, T. M. (1998). Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: an integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 42–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57, 53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (2017). Conducting field-based, discovery-oriented research: lessons from our market orientation research experience. AMS Review, 7(1), 4–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B., Kohli, A. K., & Sahay, A. (2000). Market-driven versus driving markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 45–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, A. (2013). Walmart targets ambitious renewable energy, energy efficiency standards by 2020. Clean Technica, April 23, (accessed April 24, 2015), [available at https://www.cleantechnica.com].

  • Kennedy, A.-M. (2017). Macro-social marketing research. Journal of Macromarketing, 37(4), 347–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirca, A. H., Jayachandran, S., & Bearden, W. O. (2005). Market orientation: a meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and impact on performance. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 24–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, A. K., Jaworski, B. J., & Kumar, A. (1993). MARKOR: a measure of market orientation. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(4), 467–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, P. (1972). A generic concept of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 36(2), 46–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kull, A. J., Mena, J. A., & Korschun, D. (2016). A resource-based view of stakeholder marketing. Journal of Business Research, 69(12), 5553–5560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, V., Jones, E., Venkatesan, R., & Leone, R. P. (2011). Is market orientation a source of sustainable competitive advantage or simply the cost of competing? Journal of Marketing, 75(1), 16–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laczniak, G. R., & Murphy, P. E. (2012). Stakeholder theory and marketing: Moving from a firm-centric to a societal perspective. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 31(2), 284–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laszlo, C., Sherman, D., Whalen, J., & Ellison, J. (2005). Expanding the value horizon: how stakeholder value contributes to competitive advantage. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship (20), 65.

  • Laud, G., Karpen, I. O., Mulye, R., & Rahman, K. (2015). The role of embeddedness for resource integration. Marketing Theory, 15(4), 509–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layton, R. A. (2011). Towards a theory of marketing systems. European Journal of Marketing, 45(1/2), 259–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Line, N. D., & Wang, Y. (2017). Market-oriented destination marketing. Journal of Travel Research, 56(1), 122–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006). Service-dominant logic as a foundation for a general theory. In R. F. Lusch & S. L. Vargo (Eds.), The service-dominant logic of marketing (pp. 406–420). Armank: M.E. Sharpe.

  • Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2011). Service-dominant logic: a necessary step. European Journal of Marketing, 45(7/8), 1298–1309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusch, R. F., & Webster Jr., F. E. (2011). A stakeholder-unifying, co-creation philosophy for marketing. Journal of Macromarketing, 31(2), 129–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madhavaram, S., & Hunt, S. D. (2008). The service-dominant logic and a hierarchy of operant resources: developing masterful operant resources and implications for marketing strategy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 67–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and marketing: an integrative framework. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 32(1), 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. C., & Ferrell, L. (2005). A stakeholder model for implementing social responsibility in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 39(9/10), 956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maignan, I., Gonzalez-Padron, T. L., Hult, G. T. M., & Ferrell, O. C. (2011). Stakeholder orientation: development and testing of a framework for socially responsible marketing. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19(4), 313–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsuno, K., & Mentzer, J. T. (2000). The effects of strategy type on the market orientation-performance relationship. Journal of Marketing, 64(4), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsuno, K., Mentzer, J. T., & Rentz, J. O. (2000). A refinement and validation of the MARKOR scale. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(4), 527–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mena, J., & Chabowski, B. (2015). The role of organizational learning in stakeholder marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(4), 429–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mish, J., & Scammon, D. L. (2010). Principle-based stakeholder marketing: Insights from private triple-bottom-line firms. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 29(1), 12–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mizik, N., & Jacobson, R. (2003). Trading off between value creation and value appropriation: the financial implications of shifts in strategic emphasis. Journal of Marketing, 67(1), 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Modi, P., & Mishra, D. (2010). Conceptualising market orientation in non-profit organisations: definition, performance, and preliminary construction of a scale. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(5/6), 548–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, N. (2012). Marketing and business performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), 102–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narver, J. C., Slater, S. F., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2004). Responsive and proactive market orientation and new-product success. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(5), 334–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nestlé S.A. (2017). Nestlé in society: Creating shared value and meeting our commitments 2016 Retrieved from Nestlé S.A., Avenue Nestlé 55, Vevey 1800, Switzerland.

  • Ngo, L. V., & O’Cass, A. (2009). Creating value offerings via operant resource-based capabilities. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(1), 45–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noble, C. H., Sinha, R. K., & Kumar, A. (2002). Market orientation and alternative strategic orientations: a longitudinal assessment of performance implications. Journal of Marketing, 66(4), 25–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paladino, A. (2007). Investigating the drivers of innovation and new product success: a comparison of strategic orientations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(6), 534–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, A., Frow, P., & Eggert, A. (2017). The customer value proposition: Evolution, development, and application in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(4), 467–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritter, T., & Gemünden, H. G. (2003). Network competence: its impact on innovation success and its antecedents. Journal of Business Research, 56(9), 745–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, T. S. (2017). Business model innovation: a marketing ecosystem view. AMS Review, 7(3–4), 90–100.

  • Rodriguez Cano, C., Carrillat, F. A., & Jaramillo, F. (2004). A meta-analysis of the relationship between market orientation and business performance: evidence from five continents. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(2), 179–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sett, R. K. (2017). Market orientation − firm performance link in a dynamic environment: looking inside the black box. AMS Review, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-017-0099-2.

  • Skålén, P., Gummerus, J., Koskull, C., & Magnusson, P. (2015). Exploring value propositions and service innovation: a service-dominant logic study. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(2), 137–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tantalo, C., & Priem, R. L. (2016). Value creation through stakeholder synergy. Strategic Management Journal, 37(2), 314–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varadarajan, R. (2017). Research on market orientation: some lessons shared and issues discussed in a doctoral seminar. AMS Review, 7(1), 26–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2011). Its all B2B…and beyond: toward a systems perspective of the market. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 181–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2017). Service-dominant logic 2025. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 46–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L., Koskela-Huotari, K., Edvardsson, B., Baron, S., Reynoso, J., & Colurcio, M. (2017). A systems perspective on markets – toward a research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 79, 260–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velu, C. (2015). Knowledge management capabilities of lead firms in innovation ecosystems. AMS Review, 5(3), 123–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yau, O. H. M., Chow, R. P. M., Sin, L. Y. M., Tse, A. C. B., Luk, C. L., & Lee, J. S. Y. (2007). Developing a scale for stakeholder orientation. European Journal of Marketing, 41(11), 1306–1327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dedman School of Hospitality, B4113 University Center, Florida State University, 288 Champions Way, Tallahassee, FL, 32306, USA

    Nathaniel D. Line

  2. College of Health Sciences, Sam Houston State University, 1700 University Ave., Ste 217, Box 2177, Huntsville, TX, 77341, USA

    Rodney C. Runyan

  3. College of Business and Administration, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, Dwire Hall 355D, 1420 Austin Bluffs Pkwy, Colorado Springs, CO, 80918, USA

    Tracy Gonzalez-Padron

Authors
  1. Nathaniel D. Line
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rodney C. Runyan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tracy Gonzalez-Padron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nathaniel D. Line.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Line, N.D., Runyan, R.C. & Gonzalez-Padron, T. Multiple stakeholder market orientation: a service-dominant logic perspective of the market orientation paradigm. AMS Rev 9, 42–60 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-018-0125-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-018-0125-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation