Services are key enablers in the transformation toward the circular economy because they provide the prerequisites for sustainable value co-creation. Services in the circular economy include “traditional” offerings such as maintenance and remanufacturing, but also newer types of services in the sharing economy. This chapter discusses three sustainable value co-creation activities in more detail: (1) extending product life, (2) dematerialization, and (3) replacing service systems. It also provides illustrations of services that support sustainable value co-creation and, ultimately, improved environmental sustainability. The chapter concludes by highlighting key challenges for firms and customers involved in sustainable value co-creation activities.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to inquire into how conceptualising is done in the industrial network approach (INA). Design/methodology/approach: The description and analysis of conceptualising is based on key INA references and an example illustrating the characteristics of conceptualising in individual studies. Findings: The paper concludes that there is an open and interactive way of conceptualising in the INA. The empirical and theoretical grounding achieved through combining concepts in individual empirical studies interplays with conceptual development in the research community over time. Research limitations/implications: Three paradoxes are suggested for further discussion of conceptualising as a key element in theorising in the INA community. Originality/value: By explicating how INA researchers engage in conceptualising both in individual empirical studies and as a community, the authors identify characteristics similar to the empirical phenomena in focus of the research: interaction, combining and heterogeneity of concepts. 

Value co-creation is a core focus area in both B2B marketing and strategy research, necessitating resource utilization within and across organizational boundaries. In the Industrial Marketing and Purchasing (IMP) group, scholars have focused on the interactions among resources as one important way to analyze central questions about resources in business relationships and networks. This has produced a breadth of investigations and concepts that are locally defined and utilized. This may hamper further theoretical development and inhibit analytical precision. The purpose of this paper is to develop a more general shared understanding of resource interaction by identifying and explicating the key concepts used, and to assess its status as an approach. The paper synthesizes 20 years of research to identify key concepts and the relationships across concepts. This provides both a platform for further conceptual and empirical research within IMP and potential for cross-fertilization with parallel B2B areas.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a state-of-the-art comparison of the conceptualization of resources in ‘Resource Interaction’ (IMP) and ‘Resource Integration’ (SDL). Both are engaged with understanding how value is (co)-created, but with different emphases. Existing comparisons are limited and out of date. We trace how each has evolved over time by analyzing key developments. The focus of SDL has shifted from operant resources towards resource integration, and from a dyadic view towards ecosystem contexts. Within IMP, research takes a network perspective in investigating the nature of resource interaction in a variety of empirical contexts. An analysis of similarities and differences highlights key assumptions, the classification of resources, and the role for the actor. The comparison offers a thorough understanding of Resource Interaction and Resource Integration. The paper concludes by proposing suggestions for further research for Resource Interaction. 

Solutions are commonly viewed as an integrated bundle of products and services. The solutions also need to be adapted to the specific demands of individual customers, resulting in a high degree of customisation. At the same time, manufacturers offering solutions are guided by strict demands regarding productivity and economies of scale, which, at least partly, are enabled by a higher degree of standardisation. Hence, manufacturing firms have to balance internal demands for efficiency with demands for customisation of solutions. To guide firms concerned with this challenge, a managerial framework for customisation of solutions based on commonalities is proposed.