Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Concept Paper

This version is not peer-reviewed.

From Conflict to Complexity: Extending Dynamic Capabilities into Multi-Stakeholder Ecosystems Through Value Web Strategy

Submitted:

01 September 2025

Posted:

03 September 2025

Read the latest preprint version here

Abstract
Classic strategy frameworks, such as Porter’s Five Forces, the Value Stick, Blue Ocean Strategy, and Platform Strategy, have shaped decades of scholarship and practice. Yet they remain predominantly organization-centric, emphasizing competition, conflict resolution, or resource leverage. These models are less equipped for contemporary ecosystems where legitimacy, trust, coalition dynamics, cultural norms, and evolving narratives drive outcomes.This conceptual paper introduces Value Web Strategy, which synthesizes insights from the Resource-Based View, Dynamic Capabilities, and Playing to Win into a broader, stakeholder-centric paradigm. By articulating ten dynamics of stakeholder ecosystems, the paper argues that strategy must move from organizational competition to ecosystem stewardship, where value is co-created and legitimacy sustained across interdependent actors. Importantly, the framework is operationalized through two novel constructs: Mapping the Value Web (MAV) and Power–Value Distribution (PVD) to visualize stakeholder dynamics, and the Ecosystem Value Score (EVS) to quantify ecosystem health and value balance. These tools move the framework from conceptual insight to practical application.
Keywords: 
strategy
;  
stakeholder ecosystems
;  
value web
;  
dynamic capabilities
;  
resource-based view
;  
ESG
;  
legitimacy
;  
mapping the value web
;  
power–value distribution
;  
ecosystem value score
Subject: 
Business, Economics and Management  -   Business and Management

Introduction

The strategy field is at an inflection point. Landmark frameworks like Five Forces, Value Stick, Blue Ocean Strategy, and Playing to Win remain useful, but they largely frame advantage in terms of market rivalry, positioning, or resource deployment (Kim & Mauborgne, 2005; Lafley & Martin, 2013; Oberholzer-Gee, 2021; Shiferaw & Kero, 2024). In an era of stakeholder capitalism, ESG pressures, and ecosystem interdependencies, such perspectives underplay legitimacy, trust, and social license as core strategic resources (Michalski, 2024; Tziner & Persoff, 2024).
Organizations are now evaluated not only by financial outcomes but by their ability to manage relationships across diverse stakeholders: customers, employees, regulators, communities, NGOs, investors, and even the natural environment (Vernizzi et al., 2019). The Value Web Strategy framework arises to fill this gap, offering a multi-stakeholder lens that reflects today’s complexity.

Differentiation from Existing Frameworks

Competing paradigms illustrate the limits of current strategy thought. Blue Ocean Strategy champions uncontested market spaces, while Platform Strategy highlights network effects (Kim & Mauborgne, 2005; Van Alstyne, Parker, & Choudary, 2016). Similarly, the Value Stick framework (Oberholzer-Gee, 2021) provides a compelling way to view value creation by balancing trade-offs between customers, employees, suppliers, and shareholders. The Playing to Win framework (Lafley & Martin, 2013) advanced the field by framing strategy as a cascade of choices, where to play, how to win, and what capabilities and systems are required. Yet, like its peers, it largely remains organisation-centric, emphasizing competitive positioning and internal alignment rather than the wider, contested dynamics of multi-stakeholder ecosystems.
Yet all four approaches share a limitation: they assume bilateral or linear flows of value and tend to overlook the contested, multi-polar nature of stakeholder ecosystems (Lähteenmäki & Töyli, 2023). The Value Web departs from this by extending analysis beyond traditional stakeholders to include regulators, communities, NGOs, the media, and the environment. By foregrounding dynamics such as power asymmetries, legitimacy and trust, coalitions, cultural contexts, and temporal shifts (Johansson, 2023; Markiewicz, 2005), it reframes strategy away from conflict resolution and transactional trade-offs toward ecosystem stewardship (Malkamäki et al., 2023).
Crucially, the Value Web introduces analytical tools absent in prior frameworks. Mapping the Value Web (MAV) enables strategists to visualize interdependencies across ten dynamics, while the Power–Value Distribution (PVD) lens highlights imbalances in who creates versus who captures value. Together, they offer a system-level map that makes stakeholder complexity visible. The Ecosystem Value Score (EVS) complements this by providing a composite index of ecosystem legitimacy, trust, and balance, allowing leaders to track ecosystem health over time and benchmark interventions.

Positioning Within Strategy Scholarship

The Value Web builds on, but also extends, the Resource-Based View (RBV) and Dynamic Capabilities (DC). RBV posits advantage through ownership of valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable resources (Barney, 1991; Maijanen, 2020). DC sharpened this by stressing the ability to sense, seize, and reconfigure resources in turbulence (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997; Ellström et al., 2021). Both perspectives remain influential but are primarily organization-centric, overlooking how value increasingly depends on interdependencies, contested legitimacy, and stakeholder trust (George & James, 2016; Cristofaro et al., 2025).
The Value Web Strategy extends these traditions by shifting the locus of advantage from internal routines to the ability to manage ecosystem dynamics: legitimacy, coalition pressures, narrative framing, cultural expectations, and temporal shifts (Liu et al., 2021; Rajarajeswari & Srinivasan, 2021). In this sense, it complements Playing to Win by broadening its cascade of choices: strategy is not only about “where to play” and “how to win,” but also about how to balance value across interconnected stakeholders (Payne et al., 2020; Sytnyk et al., 2021). Similarly, it extends the Value Stick by incorporating stakeholders beyond the organisation–customer–supplier triad, including employees (Oberholzer-Gee, 2021; Shiferaw & Kero, 2024). Crucially, the Value Web also advances Blue Ocean Strategy: uncontested market spaces do not arise solely from organisation-driven innovation but can be co-created when ecosystems are stewarded effectively, enabling new webs of collaboration that redefine value creation (Kim & Mauborgne, 2005; Hajar et al., 2021). In this way, the Value Web does not replace prior frameworks but embeds them within a richer ecosystem perspective, showing how advantage is increasingly forged through stewardship of multi-polar relationships rather than isolated competitive moves.
While RBV and DC explain internal advantage, they provide limited guidance for navigating ecosystem-level complexity. The Value Web bridges this gap and grounds theory in practice through its novel constructs: MAV/PVD (for ecosystem mapping) and EVS (for shared value measurement). These additions transform abstract principles into measurable, actionable strategy.
Table 1. Comparing Classic and Emerging Strategy Frameworks.
Table 1. Comparing Classic and Emerging Strategy Frameworks.
Framework Core Focus Stakeholder Scope Strengths Limitations How Value Web Extends It
Porter’s Five Forces Industry structure, competition, bargaining power of buyers/suppliers. Primarily competitors, suppliers, customers. Clear tool for analyzing rivalry and profitability. Firm/industry-centric; underplays legitimacy, ESG, coalitions, and narratives. Adds ecosystem-level dynamics, including NGOs, regulators, communities, and environment.
Value Stick (Oberholzer-Gee, 2021) Balancing value creation and capture among customers, employees, suppliers, shareholders. Expands beyond firm to core stakeholders. Intuitive framework for stakeholder trade-offs. Still bilateral/linear; excludes broader stakeholders (e.g., regulators, society, environment). Extends scope to multi-polar webs where legitimacy, trust, and interdependencies define outcomes.
Blue Ocean Strategy (Kim & Mauborgne, 2005) Creating uncontested market spaces through innovation and differentiation. Firm–customer centric. Shifts focus from rivalry to value innovation. Assumes firm-led creation of new markets; limited treatment of stakeholder ecosystems. Shows that uncontested markets often emerge from ecosystem stewardship, not just product innovation.
Platform Strategy (Parker, Van Alstyne & Choudary, 2016) Harnessing network effects between producers and consumers. Two-sided/multi-sided platform participants. Explains digital ecosystems, data-driven scale, and indirect network effects. Overemphasizes technical platforms; underplays cultural, political, and legitimacy challenges. Embeds platforms in broader ecosystems that include non-market stakeholders (NGOs, communities, regulators).
Value Web Strategy Stewardship of interdependent stakeholder ecosystems across ten dynamics. Comprehensive: firms, customers, employees, investors, regulators, NGOs, communities, environment. Integrates insights from RBV, Dynamic Capabilities, Value Stick, Playing to Win, Blue Ocean, and Platforms. Still conceptual; requires application tools. Adds Mapping the Value Web (MAV/PVD) and Ecosystem Value Score (EVS) to make complexity visible and measurable.

The Ten Dynamics of Stakeholder Ecosystems

The Value Web Strategy framework identifies ten dynamics that strategists must master. Each has been recognized in different strands of scholarship, but never systematically integrated into a strategy model:
  • Power Asymmetries – Some actors (regulators, investors, unions) wield disproportionate influence (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978; Pera et al., 2016).
  • Legitimacy and Trust – The social license to operate hinges on perceived appropriateness (Suchman, 1995; Ring, 2021).
  • Interdependencies and Externalities – Ecosystem spillovers and unintended consequences shape outcomes (Demsetz, 1967; Pera et al., 2016).
  • Coalitions and Alliances – Stakeholders often team up, amplifying influence (Barzelay & Yan, 2021; Stanley Center, 2016).
  • Information and Narratives – Competing frames shape perception, reputation, and outcomes (Freudenreich et al., 2019; Cornelissen, 2013).
  • Temporal Shifts – Expectations evolve with crises, cycles, and technologies (Freudenreich et al., 2019; George & James, 2016).
  • Cultural and Normative Contexts – Global legitimacy often collides with local norms (Hofstede, 1980; Lähteenmäki & Töyli, 2023).
  • Governance Mechanisms – Institutions set the contested “rules of the game” (Delgado-Baena & Sianes, 2024; North, 1990).
  • Technology Platforms – Digital infrastructures mediate new ecosystems of value (Lingo & McGinn, 2020; Parker et al., 2016).
  • Value Co-Creation – Multiple stakeholders jointly create and capture value (Vargo & Lusch, 2004; McIlwain et al., 2024).
These dynamics are not merely conceptual. They are operationalized through MAV, which allows strategists to plot alignment and tensions, and EVS, which quantifies health across indicators like trust, legitimacy, coalition stability, and narrative resonance. Together, they provide a practical means to see and measure complexity.

Strategic Implications

For senior leaders, adopting a Value Web perspective transforms the core strategic question from How do we beat rivals? to How do we maintain legitimacy, foster trust, and steward value across ecosystems? This perspective enhances resilience by anticipating systemic risks, enables innovation by harnessing diverse partners, and secures social license by embedding legitimacy in strategy (Dentoni et al., 2020; Fan & Luo, 2020).
Strategists can now deploy MAV and PVD as diagnostic dashboards to see which stakeholders are under- or over-compensated and anticipate flashpoints. The EVS score can be tracked like a KPI, enabling boards and investors to assess ecosystem resilience alongside financial performance. By framing value creation as an ecosystem outcome, the Value Web offers a novel paradigm for scholars and practitioners navigating the turbulence of stakeholder capitalism.

References

  1. Alstyne, M. W.; Parker, G. G.; Choudary, S. P. Platform revolution: How networked markets are transforming the economy and how to make them work for you; W. W. Norton & Company, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  2. Barney, J. Organisation resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 1991, 17(1), 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Barzelay, M.; Yan, Y. Managing transitions in systems leadership organizations: A case study of Instituto Unibanco and “education management” in Brazil. In International Public Policy Association Working Paper Series; 2021; pp. 1–28. [Google Scholar]
  4. Cornelissen, J. P. Portrait of an entrepreneur: Vincent van Gogh, Steve Jobs, and the entrepreneurial imagination. Academy of Management Review 2013, 38(4), 700–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Cristofaro, M.; Leoni, L.; Renda, G. Dynamic capabilities and organizational change: A systematic review and future agenda. Journal of Strategy and Management 2025, 18(1), 55–77. [Google Scholar]
  6. Governance mechanisms for corporate sustainability: Bridging institutional gaps in global ESG practices. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 24(2), 123–142.
  7. Demsetz, H. Toward a theory of property rights. American Economic Review 1967, 57(2), 347–359. [Google Scholar]
  8. Dentoni, D.; Bitzer, V.; Schouten, G. Harnessing wicked problems in multi-stakeholder partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics 2020, 164(2), 301–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Enders, A.; König, A.; Hungenberg, H. Balanced scorecards in strategy-focused organizations: A comparative study of the role of communication and strategy involvement. Long Range Planning 2009, 42(5–6), 529–558. [Google Scholar]
  10. Evans, S.; Vladimirova, D.; Holgado, M.; Van Fossen, K.; Yang, M.; Silva, E. A.; Barlow, C. Y. Business model innovation for sustainability: Towards a unified perspective for creation of sustainable business models. Business Strategy and the Environment 2017, 26(5), 597–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Fan, S.; Luo, X. Stakeholder ecosystems and value stewardship: Emerging perspectives. Journal of Business Strategy 2020, 41(5), 12–23. [Google Scholar]
  12. Fish, T.; MacDonald, A.; Williams, C. Exploring multi-stakeholder value creation: Interactions between actors in complex ecosystems. Strategic Organization 2018, 16(2), 135–156. [Google Scholar]
  13. Freeman, R. E. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach; Pitman, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  14. Freudenreich, B.; Lüdeke-Freund, F.; Schaltegger, S. A stakeholder theory perspective on business models: Value creation for sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics 2019, 166(1), 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. George, B.; James, O. Stakeholder dynamics and the legitimacy of public sector performance measurement: A framework and research agenda. Public Management Review 2016, 18(7), 1081–1102. [Google Scholar]
  16. Gorski, A.-T.; Dumitraşcu, D. D. Stakeholder ecosystems and corporate sustainability: A nexus for value creation in the age of sustainability. Studies in Business and Economics 2023, 18(2), 158–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hajar, I.; Zainuddin, A.; Yusof, S. A. Revisiting Blue Ocean Strategy: A systematic review and research agenda. Journal of Strategy and Management 2021, 14(3), 389–406. [Google Scholar]
  18. Hofstede, G. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values; SAGE Publications, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  19. Johansson, J. Managing interdependencies in ecosystems: Externalities and spillovers in the digital era. Journal of Business Research 2023, 158, 113669. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kabue, L. W.; Kilika, J. M. Linking competitive strategies with organisation performance: A review of literature. International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management 2016, 4(5), 110–132. [Google Scholar]
  21. Kim, W. C.; Mauborgne, R. Blue ocean strategy: How to create uncontested market space and make the competition irrelevant; Harvard Business School Press, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  22. Kim, Y.; Yang, D. Dynamic capabilities in the era of digital transformation: A meta-analysis. Technovation 2024, 130, 102731. [Google Scholar]
  23. Koch, T.; Windsperger, J. Seeing through the network: Competitive advantage in the digital economy. Journal of Organization Design 2017, 6(1), 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lafley, A. G.; Martin, R. Playing to win: How strategy really works; Harvard Business Review Press, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  25. Lähteenmäki, I.; Töyli, J. Cultural contexts of sustainability strategies: How organisations balance global ESG demands with local legitimacy. Sustainability 2023, 15(12), 9632. [Google Scholar]
  26. Liboni, L. B.; Cezarino, L. O.; Caldana, A. C. Green dynamic capabilities and environmental sustainability in organizations. Journal of Cleaner Production 2022, 366, 132921. [Google Scholar]
  27. Lingo, E. L.; McGinn, K. L. From managing to enabling: The rise of platforms and ecosystems. Academy of Management Discoveries 2020, 6(3), 356–373. [Google Scholar]
  28. Liu, Y.; Wei, J.; Huang, Y. Dynamic capabilities, organizational resilience, and organisation performance in complex environments. Journal of Business Research 2021, 133, 183–195. [Google Scholar]
  29. Madhani, P. Resource based view (RBV) of competitive advantage: An overview. The IUP Journal of Management Research 2010, 10(1), 57–72. [Google Scholar]
  30. Maijanen, P. Value creation through resource-based view: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews 2020, 22(3), 310–328. [Google Scholar]
  31. Malkamäki, A.; Haapala, J.; Ritala, P. Complexity in ecosystems: New dynamics for business strategy. Industrial Marketing Management 108 2023, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  32. Markiewicz, T. Building coalitions for sustainability: Lessons from global partnerships. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 2005, 6(3), 240–253. [Google Scholar]
  33. Matzembacher, D. E.; Raudsaar, M.; Ritala, P. Ecosystem strategy and stakeholder interdependencies: A case study approach. Long Range Planning 2020, 53(4), 101870. [Google Scholar]
  34. McIlwain, C.; Thomas, D.; Wei, L. Co-creation as a driver of strategic renewal: Evidence from digital platforms. Strategic Organization 2024, 22(2), 201–219. [Google Scholar]
  35. Nahapiet, J.; Ghoshal, S. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review 1997, 22(2), 242–266. [Google Scholar]
  36. North, D. C. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance; Cambridge University Press, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  37. Oberholzer-Gee, F. Better, simpler strategy: A value-based guide to exceptional performance; Harvard Business Press, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  38. Patrusheva, N.; Kolosok, S.; Shumilo, O. Stakeholder synergy for shared value creation. Journal of Management Development 2020, 39(5), 643–657. [Google Scholar]
  39. Pera, R.; Occhiocupo, N.; Clarke, J. Motives and resources for value co-creation in a multi-stakeholder ecosystem: A managerial perspective. Journal of Business Research 2016, 69(10), 4033–4041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rindova, V.; Martins, L. Value-rationality in strategy: Mobilizing values for competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review 2017, 42(3), 405–424. [Google Scholar]
  41. Ring, P. S. Trust dynamics and stakeholder legitimacy in ecosystems. Organization Studies 2021, 42(4), 573–593. [Google Scholar]
  42. Rouse, M. J.; Boff, L. H. Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year review. Journal of Management 2001, 27(6), 643–659. [Google Scholar]
  43. Shiferaw, F.; Kero, M. Revisiting the Value Stick: A synthesis of stakeholder value in business ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal 2024, 45(2), 341–367. [Google Scholar]
  44. Suchman, M. C. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review 1995, 20(3), 571–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Teece, D. J.; Pisano, G.; Shuen, A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 1997, 18(7), 509–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wernerfelt, B. A resource-based view of the organisation. Strategic Management Journal 1984, 5(2), 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
bsky
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Privacy Settings

© 2026 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated