Defining Firm-Level Resource Integration Effectiveness from the Perspective of Service-Dominant Logic: A Critical Factor Contributing to the Sustainability of a Firm’s Competitive Advantage and the Ecosystem It Operates

Abstract

When a firm engages in repeated resource integration efforts, it develops an attribute called firm-level resource integration effectiveness (FL-RIE) over time. Due to its meta-theoretical nature, the use of this concept is limited. Thus, to make the formation of mid-range theories easier, through a systematic literature review, this study defines FL-RIE as the degree to which a firm’s resource integrating activities are successful in co-creating value, creating new resources and evaluating emerging properties of resource integration efforts. According to the definition, FL-RIE can be used to calibrate a firm’s resource integration capability in two instances. First, insights generated by FL-RIE can increase the frequency of value cocreation and new resource creation by a firm. Since increasing the frequency of value cocreation and new resource creation can ensure long-term business sustainability, FL-RIE can contribute to business sustainability. Second, insights generated by FL-RIE can improve the capability of evaluating emerging properties of resource integration efforts. Since the evaluation of emerging properties can generate feedback that can enhance resource integration capability, which can be considered a dynamic capability, FL-RIE can contribute to a firm’s sustained competitive advantage. Furthermore, since the same feedback can enhance the well-being of the other actors engaged with the firm and ensure the continuation of the ecosystem that the firm operates, FL-RIE can contribute to the sustainability of the firm and the ecosystem. The findings of this study can be used to develop a conceptual framework and a measurement scale for FL-RIE, and form several hypotheses related to strategic management and sustainability.

1. Introduction

At present, no firm can survive without interacting with outside firms (e.g., suppliers, partners) and individuals (e.g., consultants, customers) [1]. As per the service-dominant logic (S-D logic) that is defined with eleven foundational premises (FPs) [1], the main reason for this interdependence is the micro-specialization of individuals and firms [2,3,4]. Micro-specialization results from individuals and firms specializing in certain tasks (e.g., individuals as accountants, data scientists, etc.; firms as telecommunication service providers, automobile manufacturers, etc.). This has led firms to rely on external suppliers to exchange micro-specializations that they lack. However, the exchange of micro-specializations alone does not ensure business success [4]. Firms should continuously improve their circumstances by co-creating value with acquired micro-specializations to achieve business success [1,4,5].

Firms co-create value through resource integration [4,6,7]. Resource integration is a set of underlying processes and activities performed on existing and new micro-specializations (intangible resources) and tangible resources for value cocreation [7]. Firms strive to co-create value in every operation and project they undertake [7]. However, there are instances where resource integration reduces a firm’s circumstances through the co-destruction of value. Therefore, a firm’s ability to consistently co-create value throughout daily operations and projects is a key firm-level competency that every firm should continuously develop. Only then can they ensure long-term business sustainability. A firm’s capability to co-create value frequently depends on its proficiency in integrating resources. One attribute that can indicate the level of this proficiency is firm-level resource integration effectiveness (FL-RIE) [8,9]. This is an attribute developed over time due to repeated resource integration processes [9] and it represents a firm’s resource deployment proficiency in creating value [8,9]. Hence, FL-RIE can be considered an attribute that contributes to business sustainability.

Despite FL-RIE’s applications in relationship marketing [9], it is still a concept on the meta-theoretical level. Empirical investigations cannot be conducted using meta-theories because they are broader in scope and context-free [10]. Mid-range theories bridge the gap between meta-theories and empirical investigations and allow researchers to conduct empirical research [10,11,12]. Hence, until a proper mid-range theoretical contribution crystalizes the conceptual domain of FL-RIE, it is impossible to test the proposed applications of FL-RIE empirically. The first step in crystalizing the conceptual domain of FL-RIE is developing a definition for the construct [13]. However, there is hardly any study that has comprehensively defined FL-RIE. Thus, this study undertook the challenge of proposing a comprehensive definition for FL-RIE to pave the way for future researchers to develop mid-range theories for FL-RIE.

The remainder of this paper is arranged into four sections: methodology (Section 2), literature review (Section 3), discussion (Section 4), and conclusion (Section 5). Since it was necessary to identify, appraise, and summarize the results of individual studies to define FL-RIE, this study adopted a systematic literature review as the research methodology. The literature review is dedicated to systematically defining FL-RIE by following the study’s methodology. At the end of the literature review, the definition of FL-RIE is presented. The fourth section examines the theoretical and practical contributions, as well as limitations and recommendations for future scholars. The concluding remarks bring the paper to a close.

2. Methodology

This study conducted a systematic literature review to formulate the definition of FL-RIE. The main objective of this review is to investigate the past uses of FL-RIE. However, except for [8,9], it is hard to find any past studies related to FL-RIE. In such instances, researchers have the option of conducting the systematic literature review on a closely related construct or constructs [13]. FL-RIE is an attribute that firms develop due to repeated resource integration processes. Past researchers have carried out extensive research on resource integration. Thus, this study systematically reviewed the literature on resource integration since it is the most closely related construct of FL-RIE to considerable past research.

A systematic literature review is a thorough analysis of a certain topic that follows a six-step procedure (i.e., “preparing a review question, selecting criteria for inclusion of articles in the review, systematically searching the published and unpublished literature, determining which articles meet the predefined inclusion criteria, critically appraising the quality of the research, extracting outcome data from the research report and summarizing the best available evidence on the topic of interest” [14] (p. 66)).

By systematically reviewing past research on resource integration, this study intended to facilitate understanding of the definition of resource integration from the perspective of S-D logic. By doing that, it is possible to come up with a definition for firm-level resource integration. Once a definition is established for resource integration, that can be utilized to form a definition for FL-RIE. Hence, the systematic literature review aims to formulate a definition for resource integration. Thus, the review question is, What is the definition of resource integration?

After finalizing the review question, the article inclusion criteria were determined. A summary of the article inclusion criteria is shown in

Table 1. Criteria for inclusion.

Characteristic	Inclusion Criteria
Publication medium	Peer-reviewed journal, conference, and book chapters indexed in Scopus
Language	English and Sinhala
Period	From 2006 to 2020 (inclusive)
Research design	Conceptual and empirical
Content	SD logic related studies that include discussions on resource integration
Source	Scopus and Google Scholar databases

below.

When determining inclusion criteria, this study decided to search articles written in the English and Sinhalese languages because the authors are not proficient in any other language. This approach has been adopted in several other review articles (e.g., [15]). The authors decided to shortlist only peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and conference papers. After observing this as an inclusion criterion in review articles published in top-tier journals (e.g., [15,16]), this decision was taken. Furthermore, the authors decided to consider SD logic related articles published between 2006 and 2020. At the same time, the authors ensured that the articles included discussions on resource integration. These two criteria were considered as inclusion criteria based on the recommendations of [16].

Subsequently, the search process was conducted in the three steps mentioned below.

• Step 1: Scopus was selected as the search engine to systematically search relevant literature because it produces the most extended list of relevant references [17]. Through the understanding gathered from the preliminary literature review, the authors searched the Scopus database for the phrases resource integration, resource integration process, resource integration AND service-dominant logic, and resource integration process AND service-dominant logic. The search process of the phrases resource integration and resource integration process mostly returned irrelevant responses. Thus, this study ignored those responses. The search conducted for the phrase resource integration process AND service-dominant logic returned 58 unique responses. The phrase resource integration AND service-dominant logic produced 112 unique responses. The outcome of resource integration process AND service-dominant logic overlapped with the outcome of resource integration AND service-dominant logic. Thus, only the results of resource integration AND service-dominant logic were considered. As a result, 112 distinct search results were retrieved.
• Step 2: The authors carefully reviewed all the studies obtained from Step 1. The review identified two types of studies. Fifty-eight studies provided opinions on the nature of resource integration, while the others did not. The group that commented on the nature of resource integration considers it an interactive or an interactive and emergent process. Ref. [18] suggest that resource integration can be defined by considering it as an emergent, interactive, or intersubjective process. Hence, the authors decided that the studies that discuss the nature of resource integration can be used to form the definition of resource integration. Thus, at the end of Step 2, 58 studies were retained for further review.
• Step 3: To ensure that this study captures a majority of the relevant articles, the authors repeated step 1 with the Google Scholar search engine. Results of up to 10 pages were chosen because the authors noted that the search results beyond ten pages consisted of irrelevant studies. The screening process was carried out by reading the titles and abstracts of each study. At the end of step 3, 13 more studies that are published in top-tier peer-reviewed journals were considered. Thus, the authors shortlisted 71 studies for further review by the end of this step.

The summary of the article inclusion criteria and the search process is shown in Figure 1 below.

Because the 71 articles chosen had been peer-reviewed, it was deemed that they were of sufficient quality to be included in the review. The authors did not come across any articles written in Sinhalese. Thus, all the articles considered for the review were written in English. The articles were then carefully reviewed to answer the review question. The literature review contains a detailed overview of the information gleaned from the review.

3. Results

Ref. [18] discuss three distinct approaches to define resource integration (i.e., as an emergent, interactive, or intersubjective process). In the first section of the literature review, this study discusses the authors’ approach to defining resource integration by reviewing past studies shortlisted in the manuscript search process. Once the approach is finalized, the definition of the resource integration is postulated and presented. The second section of the literature review utilizes the postulated definition to propose the definition for FL-RIE.

3.1. Defining Resource Integration

Ref. [4] introduced resource integration through the ninth FP of S-D logic. They claimed it as the process that “integrates and transforms micro-specialized competences residing within organizations into complex services that are demanded in the marketplace” [4] (p. 53). The initial idea was that resource integration is the process entrepreneurs carry out to produce complex services demanded by the customers. Hence, in the beginning, it was argued that the organization is the only actor capable of carrying out resource integration.

However, Ref. [5] (p. 7) later modified the ninth FP to state that “all social and economic actors are resource integrators”. By modifying the ninth FP, Ref. [5] got rid of the firm-centric nature of resource integration. Instead, they argued that all actors in the society are resource integrators who integrate resources in open, complex, and adaptive service systems. Actors in society are diverse. For example, an individual, a department, a firm, or even a country can be considered an actor [19,20]. Due to the involvement of several diverse actors, the resource integration process is described as a collaborative and interactive process in current research (e.g., [7,21,22]). However, the systematic literature review suggests alternative viewpoints that disregard resource integration only as a collaborative and interactive process. Some studies consider resource integration an interactive and emergent process (e.g., [6,18,20]). Such studies define emergence as the generation of new emergent properties such as entities, structures, totalities, concepts, qualities, capacities, textures, and resource integration mechanisms capable of ensuring the well-being and continuation of an ecosystem [23].

Hence, the systematic literature review identified an inconsistency in the adopted approaches to define resource integration. Thus, the rest of the systematic review is dedicated to developing a clearer definition of resource integration while rationalizing the approach adopted to develop the definition.

For that, out of the 71, this study identified 11 studies that have contributed to the metatheoretical and mid-range theoretical development of resource integration by introducing mutually exclusive definitions and conceptualizations (i.e., [4,5,6,18,20,22,24,25,26,27,28]). They were further reviewed to investigate the approaches adopted to defining and conceptualizing resource integration. The review revealed that they are fragmented in their viewpoints. Thus, this study re-reviewed all the eleven studies to develop a logical answer for the review question. A summary of the review of 11 studies is available in

Table 2. Summary of the descriptions presented for resource integration in the studies reviewed to formulate the definition of resource integration.

Study	Description of Resource Integration	Resource Integration: An Interactive Process (IP), Emergent Process (EP) or an Interactive and Emergent Process (IEP)?
[24]	A process whereby actors combine and apply resources in pursuit of value creation	IEP
[6]	Resource integration is a process consists of three phases: matching, resourcing, and valuing	IEP
[25]	Resource integration consists of cooperative and collaborative processes between actors, leading to experiential outcomes and outputs, as well as mutual behavioral outcomes for all actors involved	IEP
[22]	Resource integration requires process(es) and forms of collaboration. Collaboration occurs through commitments between networked actors	IP
[26]	Conceptualize resource integration with six distinct interactive practices: accessing, adapting, mobilizing, internalizing, transforming, and applying	IP
[20]	Where resource interaction results in either emergent or summative relations	IEP
[18]	Claim resource integration as an emergent process while acknowledging its interactive nature	IEP
[4]	Resource integration integrates and transforms micro-specialized competencies residing within organizations into complex services that are demanded in the marketplace	IP
[5]	All social and economic actors are resource integrators	IP
[27,28]	Collaborative networks and dynamic interactions back resource integration	IP

.

As discussed earlier, Ref. [4] introduced resource integration through the 9th FP of S-D logic as a firm-centric concept. Let us discuss their argument for positioning resource integration as a firm-centric concept. Today, individuals are micro-specialized due to the division of labour. Think of carpenters, electricians, data scientists, etc. A vast majority of professions are highly specialized. For this reason, firms must hire multiple individuals capable of performing various micro-specialized tasks (e.g., accountancy, marketing, engineering, and supply chain). To produce the complex services that the marketplace demands, entrepreneurs must combine micro-specializations of individuals with other resources in organizations. Individuals must interact with each other and resources during the combination process because combination without interaction is not possible. Hence, Ref. [4] implicitly discuss resource integration’s interactive and collaborative nature.

Do the studies discuss the emergent nature of resource integration? Yes, they do. However, their discussion on emergence is implicit. Emergence is the generation of new properties through resource integration [20]. Ref. [4] (p. 53) claim that entrepreneurs can “envision service that people want and will pay to obtain and integrate together micro-specialists to offer and provide this service”. Furthermore, Ref. [4] (p. 53) argue that “organizations exist to integrate and transform micro-specialized competences into complex services that are demanded in the marketplace”. In both instances, they discuss the emergence of services that do not occur before integrating resources. Therefore, it is possible to argue that they have implicitly acknowledged the emergent nature of resource integration. However, they have not discussed anything related to the continuous improvement of resource integration. Thus, one could argue that they have not thought about emergence at all.

Ref. [5] modified the 9th FP, got rid of the firm-centric nature of resource integration, and acknowledged that any actor (from an individual to a country) could be a resource integrator. However, the modified FP (i.e., “all social and economic actors are resource integrators” [5] (p. 7)) did not indicate the interactive or the emergent nature of resource integration. However, studies that followed [5] have predominantly highlighted the interactive nature of resource integration over the emergent nature (e.g., [29,30,31,32]).

Since Refs. [5,22] were the first to present something novel regarding resource integration. They propose that resource integration “requires process(es) and forms of collaboration” [22] (p. 203). “Collaboration occurs through commitments between networked actors” to co-create value collectively [22] (p. 203). Furthermore, they suggest that the actors continuously configure processes responsible for carrying out resource integration to respond to changes in the external environment. Collaboration and reconfiguration of resource integrating processes occur through interaction between actors. Hence, Ref. [22] acknowledge the interactive nature of resource integration. However, they discuss a property of resource integration that goes beyond interaction. Ref. [22] (p. 203) present the following argument:

“We need to look further than the interaction to fully understand the cocreation of value. It is the human and social experience resulting from the interaction with engagement platforms that is crucial. Therefore, we need to understand more about the experiences of the actors within the integrating process”.

Through this argument, Ref. [22] argue that a property called human and social experience emerges from interaction, and they call for further investigation of the property. It is not clear whether they intended to position resource integration as an emergent process through the discussion of the experience. It is possible to assume that instead of highlighting the emergent nature, they might be indicating the importance of utilizing the experiences gathered from prior resource integration processes to improve the collaboration and reconfiguration abilities that are vital for enhanced resource integration in the future. Thus, while Ref. [22] accepted the interactive nature of resource integration, it is not conclusive whether they intended to position resource integration as an emergent process.

However, evidence suggests that studies that followed [22] have been inspired to consider resource integration not only as an interactive process but also as an emergent process. Ref. [25] is one such study. Ref. [25] (p. 297) proposed the following definition for resource integration:

“Resource integration consists of cooperative and collaborative processes between actors, leading to experiential outcomes and outputs, as well as mutual behavioral outcomes for all actors involved.”

Even though there is a difference, this definition is inspired by the definition of resource integration in [22]. Unlike Ref. [22], Ref. [25] provide a clear opinion regarding the emergent nature of resource integration. Ref. [25] highlight the interactive nature of resource integration. At the same time, they claim that “experiential outcomes and outputs” are emerging from resource integration. Like Ref. [22], Ref. [25] discuss experiential outcomes that emerge from resource integration. At the same time, Ref. [25] discuss outputs. These outputs can be new emergent properties such as entities, structures, totalities, concepts, qualities, capacities, textures, and mechanisms. Thus, Ref. [25] are one of the earliest studies to highlight the emergent nature of resource integration.

Ref. [18] also explicitly claim resource integration as an emergent process while acknowledging its interactive nature. According to their argument, an ecosystem should maintain its continuation by regularly co-creating value through resource integration (even though from time to time, there can be instances where value is co-destructed). It is crucial to reconfigure resource integration processes regularly to improve them by evaluating the outcomes of prior resource integration efforts to co-create value regularly. That is why each actor in the ecosystem should evaluate the outcome, determine value-in-context, and, if required, suggest changes to the resource integration processes. By examining the outcomes and showing the validity of understanding resource integration as an emergent process, Ref. [18] highlight the need for ongoing improvement of resource integration procedures.

Ref. [6] is influenced by [18]. They propose a unique definition and a conceptualization for resource integration. Ref. [6] clarify the anatomy of resource integration by positioning it as a process consisting of three phases: matching, resourcing, and valuing. Matching “is the pre-phase of the resource integration process that is based on interaction” [6] (p. 70). Resourcing is the phase that combines and transforms resources into benefits through coordination mechanisms (i.e., knowledge, skills, and institutional arrangements) [6]. Thus, it is evident that [6] acknowledge the interactive nature of resource integration because matching and resourcing involve interaction between actors. At the end of the resourcing phase, an outcome with a positive or negative value emerges. During the valuing phase, value assessments are conducted on the outcome by each actor to determine the respective value-in-context [6]. Each valuing phase generates feedback that can improve future resource integration efforts. Thus, by including valuing as a phase of resource integration, [6] acknowledge the emergent nature of the process and the importance of evaluating emergent properties to ensure each actor’s well-being and the continuation of the ecosystem.

Several studies have positioned resource integration as an interactive process even after [18,25]. This study identified four such studies (i.e., [24,26,27,28]). Ref. [26] conceptualize resource integration with six distinct practices: accessing, adapting, mobilizing, internalizing, transforming, and applying. They discuss the need for interaction when executing each practice. However, they do not highlight the emergent nature of resource integration when talking about any of the six practices. Their discussion is predominantly focused on the process over the outcome. Hence, Ref. [26] posit that resource integration is a process consisting only of six interactive practices.

In a qualitative empirical study, Ref. [24] (p. 175) define resource integration as “a process whereby actors combine and apply resources in pursuit of value creation”. They claim that the combination and application of resources are carried out through a set of interactive activities that the actors in an ecosystem perform. Hence, Ref. [24] acknowledge the interactive nature of resource integration. However, they do not highlight the emergent nature of resource integration in their definition. Instead, Ref. [24] assert that the value appraisal process takes care of the valuing of emergent properties and indicates that valuing is a process external to resource integration.

Refs. [27,28] propose identical definitions and concepts for resource integration. They propose that collaborative networks and dynamic interactions back resource integration. Collaborative networks are required “to acquire the needed resources that cannot be obtained through internal resources” [27] (p. 4). During the acquisition process, actors must interact with other actors in the ecosystem. Dynamic interaction among actors is required to “leverage the actor capacity to integrate relevant resources and build value cocreation”. Thus, Refs. [27,28] position resource integration as an interactive process and do not discuss the emergent nature of the process.

Based on this background, it is possible to identify two different opinions regarding the approach adopted to propose definitions for resource integration. Resource integration is viewed as an interactive process by one set of academics, while it is viewed as an interactive and emergent process by the other.

Resource integration is viewed as an interactive and emergent process in this study. There is no doubt that interaction is mandatory to integrate resources. However, does interaction alone guarantee continuous enhancement of the ecosystem? No, because the constant enhancement of an ecosystem depends on the lessons learnt by each actor after each resource integration process. If most of the actors involved in resource integration end up co-destructing value in most instances, it is hard to sustain the continuation of that ecosystem. However, suppose each actor evaluates their respective outcomes through valuing and shares the lessons learnt with the other actors. In that case, it allows a greater understanding of knowledge and skill deficiencies of certain actors and identifies institutional arrangements that prevent certain actors from co-creating value. Hence, valuing emergent properties facilitates the identification of enhancements required for the existing resource integration activities, fixing issues, and ensuring the well-being and the continuation of the ecosystem. Therefore, this study accepts the emergent nature of resource integration.

Based on this background, this study defines resource integration as a set of collaborative and interactive activities that take place in a service ecosystem among a network of actors, potential and existing resources for the purpose of value cocreation, creation of new resources, and valuing to ensure the generation of feedback that is required for reconfiguration, well-being, and the continuation of the ecosystem, where some actors experience positive value-in-context while the rest experience negative value-in-context.

This study answered the review question by forming the definition of resource integration. It was used to develop the definition of FL-RIE presented in the subsequent section.

3.2. Defining Firm-Level Resource Integration Effectiveness

Before moving on to the definition of FL-RIE, this study proposes a definition for firm-level resource integration because the current research focuses on a capability (i.e., FL-RIE) that a firm develops due to repeated resource integration efforts over time.

Ref. [18] proposes viewing resource integration interactivity as a series of context-based, observable, and quantifiable processes. Because the current study is focused on the firm level, the interactivity of the resource integration process can be understood as a series of observable and measurable organizational processes. The emergent nature of firm-level resource integration is generating feedback that is being used to reconfigure future resource integration efforts and take care of the firm’s well-being, as well as the actors collaborating with the firm.

Thus, firm-level resource integration can be defined as a set of observable and measurable organizational activities that take place in a service ecosystem consisting of the organization and its stakeholders among a network of internal and external actors, potential and existing resources for the purpose of value cocreation, creation of new resources, and valuing the emergent properties to ensure the generation of feedback, well-being, and the continuation of the ecosystem, where some actors experience positive value-in-context while the rest experience negative value-in-context at the end.

With the availability of a definition for firm-level resource integration, this study moved into the stage of defining FL-RIE. Resource integration effectiveness results from repeated resource integration efforts [9]. Therefore, firm-level resource integration effectiveness (FL-RIE) can be considered a result of repeated firm-level resource integration efforts. [9] (p. 93) defines resource integration effectiveness as an actor’s “resource deployment proficiency to create value”. This definition focuses only on the resource deployment phase (through interaction and resourcing [6]) of a resource integration process and ignores the valuing phase. Furthermore, the definition discusses only value creation and does not mention or imply anything regarding creating new resources and valuing to ensure the well-being and continuation of the ecosystem. That is because the definition focuses only on the interactive nature of resource integration; it ignores the emergent nature of the process. Therefore, this study proposes a new definition for firm-level resource integration effectiveness by incorporating the emergent nature of firm-level resource integration.

Effectiveness is “the degree to which something is successful in producing a desired result” [33]. Thus, FL-RIE can be defined as the degree to which a set of interactive observable and measurable organizational activities that take place among a network of internal and external actors and existing and potential resources are successful in co-creating value, creating new resources, and valuing the emergent properties to ensure the generation of feedback that can be used for reconfiguration purposes and well-being and continuation of the organization and the ecosystem that it operates.

Let us consider an example to understand the definition of FL-RIE better. When individuals carry out resource integration processes within firms, it is visible to the external parties as if organizations were carrying out the process. The manner in which individuals are carrying out resource integration processes differs from firm to firm. As a result, the firm-level properties of resource integration that spin-off due to individual-level resource integration also differ from firm to firm. FL-RIE is such a property.

Firms such as LEGO, Microsoft, and Google are firms well-known for demonstrating ethical and socially responsible behavior in their quest for achieving their goals and objectives [34]. It is accepted that these firms are adopting the stakeholder model when implementing their strategic, business, and operational plans [35]. Firms that adopt the stakeholder model assume that while they are maximizing the profit to ensure the well-being of the shareholders, they are responsible for the well-being of all the stakeholders linked with the business. On the contrary, there is another type of firm that adopts the shareholder model. Firms that adopt the shareholder model only focus on maximizing their profits to ensure the well-being of their shareholders [35]. Volkswagen is an example for a firm that adopts the shareholder model [36]. In 2015, the environmental protection authority of the United States of America found that many Volkswagen cars that are being sold in America had software that could artificially change the performance results of the emission tests [37]. Some of the Volkswagen models were found guilty of emitting 40 times the legal limit of nitrogen oxide [36].

LEGO, Microsoft, and Google can be considered as firms that can co-create value and create new resources while ensuring the generation of feedback that can be used for reconfiguration purposes and well-being and continuation of the ecosystem that they operate. On the contrary, even though a majority of the resource integration efforts of Volkswagen co-create value and create new resources, it has failed to ensure the well-being and continuation of various parties that exist in the ecosystem it operates. It is important that a firm aims to fulfil all three aspects (i.e., co-creating value, creating new resources, and valuing the emergent properties to ensure the generation of feedback that can be used for reconfiguration purposes and well-being and continuation of the organization and the ecosystem that it operates) when performing a resource integration effort. Thus, it could be assumed that LEGO, Microsoft, and Google are firms with a higher level of FL-RIE compared to Volkswagen. In other words, LEGO, Microsoft, and Google are fulfilling all three aspects in a higher frequency compared to Volkswagen when performing resource integration efforts.

4. Discussion

This study achieved its objective by proposing a definition for FL-RIE. This section explores the implications of the definition for the management discipline and the progressive development of the SD logic, as well as limitations and future research directions.

According to the definition, FL-RIE is a firm-level property crucial for ensuring the long-term sustainability of a firm and the ecosystem that it operates. Let us discuss how. Firm-level resource integration is a capability that is embedded in organizational processes. It is responsible for co-creating/co-destructing value, creating new resources, and evaluating emerging properties. This capability varies across organizations. That is why some firms co-create value and create new resources frequently compared to others. Thus, if organizations can adequately understand their resource integration capabilities, they can take the necessary actions to improve the frequency of value cocreation and resource creation. FL-RIE is the property that captures the degree to which a firm is capable of co-creating value and creating new resources when carrying out day-to-day operations and projects. Thus, firms can use FL-RIE to improve their knowledge of their resource integration capabilities. An improved understanding can enhance their chances of improving the frequency of value cocreation and new resource creation, and therefore of long-term business sustainability.

Evaluating emerging properties of a resource integration effort is also a part of resource integration [6]. Emerging properties can produce information/feedback that can be used to evaluate the need for reconfiguring a firm’s resource integration capability. Producing appropriate feedback and performing the timely reconfiguration of a dynamic capability such as resource integration is not easy [38]. However, when practiced frequently, it becomes easier. When firms develop capabilities through continuous reconfiguration, those capabilities turn into routines that are hard to imitate or replicate [38]. Such capabilities can ensure long-term business sustainability by generating competitive advantage for a firm. Thus, resource integration is a capability that can ensure long-term business sustainability by rendering competitive advantage for a firm if it is continuously reconfigured with proper feedback.

Evaluation of emerging properties can also produce information/feedback related to the performance of other actors in the ecosystem. Such information can be used to reconfigure various ecosystem parameters, such as institutional arrangements, and assist other actors in reconfiguring their resource integration capabilities. By doing that, a firm can reconfigure and/or suggest reconfiguring the nature of its interactions with external actors and contribute to the well-being and the continuation of the ecosystem. Consider the following examples.

A project can achieve financial success by producing a desirable outcome for the customers. However, if customers will not receive proper aftersales service, the project could fail. An appropriate evaluation of post-project customer service could generate information/feedback to improve internal resource integration processes that provide customer service and reconfigure the resource integration processes responsible for the firm’s customer engagement to ensure the customers’ well-being. Furthermore, a project that harms the environment could produce a financially successful outcome. However, harmful environmental impact can give rise to unrest among actors such as customers, suppliers, competitors, the general public, traditional media, government organizations, etc. In such an instance, the firm could use the feedback generated by evaluating emergent properties of resource integration efforts to avoid or minimize the destructive environmental impact to ensure the continuation of the ecosystem. These examples suggest that the evaluation of emergent properties can generate feedback that can enhance the brand image of the firm, as well as the resource integration capabilities of the other actors, and prevent destructive impacts to the ecosystem, thus ensuring the long-term sustainability of the firms and the ecosystem.

FL-RIE’s definition indicates that it can capture the degree to which a firm is capable of evaluating emerging properties. Hence, a properly developed mid-range theory that conceptualizes FL-RIE or a measurement scale that measures FL-RIE can generate suggestions for improving the component of resource integration capability that evaluates emerging properties. Thus, this study recommends FL-RIE as a firm-level property that can generate outcomes capable of ensuring firm’s long-term business sustainability and the sustainability of the firm and the ecosystem.

Apart from the above implications, FL-RIE might have applications in disciplines such as evolutionary biology. Human evolution is filled with mysteries. Refs. [39,40] shed the first light on uncovering the mysteries of human evolution by explaining it as a genetic process. On top of the findings of Darwin, evolutionary biologists developed a strong neo-Darwinian knowledge base for genetic evolution. According to their main argument, organisms adopt and exhibit characteristics (through natural selection) which allows them to survive and reproduce in their environment [41]. In other words, through natural selection, its organisms are modelled to become better suited to the environment. The niche construction theory (NCT) of evolutionary biology opposes this view by arguing that organisms also have the capacity to modify the natural selection process by choosing, regulating, constructing, and destroying various components of their environment [42,43,44].

Social scientists investigate human behavior and culture. They have a significant role in the process of understanding the patterns of human niche construction [45]. Hence, there is a growing body of research that calls on social scientists to involve themselves in the process of developing theories and models to explain human niche construction (i.e., how humans modify their environment) [45,46,47].

Firms contribute to the changes taking place in the environment through various operations and projects they are executing. Thus, firms are niche constructing the environment and contribute to the process of human evolution. FL-RIE has the potential to indicate the degree to which resource integration processes taking place in operations and projects are capable of valuing outputs to check whether the outputs can ensure the well-being and the continuation of the environment it operates. Thus, if there are theories and models that are capable of predicting the FL-RIE of firms, it is possible to pre-determine whether the outcomes produced by them would be desirable or undesirable for humankind, the environment and ultimately evolution.

It is evident that the definition of FL-RIE has implications for academia and practice. Researchers can develop more mid-range and micro-level theories using the proposed definition (e.g., conceptualize FL-RIE, develop a measurement scale for FL-RIE, empirically test whether FL-RIE is an antecedent of sustained competitive advantage, project success, human niche construction, etc.). Such mid-range and micro-level theories are beneficial for the progress of SD logic. Since its inception, SD logic has come a long way to develop a great meta-theoretical base. However, its progress is currently hampered by the lack of mid-range (i.e., conceptual frameworks and models) and micro-level (i.e., evidence-based research) theoretical contributions [12]. This has further hampered SD logic’s chances of creating the new paradigm shift that it is expected to create in the marketing discipline [48]. Any concept targeting to obtain paradigmatic status should have the capability to initiate cross-disciplinary debates [48]. Therefore, to achieve its ultimate goal (i.e., achieve paradigmatic status), SDL should be able to attract the interest of researchers from other disciplines. This study shows how a SD logic related concept such as FL-RIE could initiate cross-disciplinary research with disciplines such as strategic management, project management, and evolutionary biology.

Furthermore, this study informs practitioners regarding the existence of FL-RIE and its capability of assisting firms to improve resource integration capability. Hence, practitioners can assist academia in enhancing the mid-range and micro-level understanding of the concept by supporting future research on FL-RIE, since the practical usability of FL-RIE is limited because significantly less is known about the components conceptualizing FL-RIE.

Despite its implications, this study has several limitations. First, the authors selected a systematic literature review as the methodology. However, there are other methodologies that can be used to define abstract constructs (e.g., [13]). When selecting a methodology, the authors considered the convenience and popularity of the chosen methodology among past researchers. Second, expert opinions can be used to select the phrases for the article search process (e.g., [13]). However, this study did not use expert opinions. Third, to conduct the article review process, the authors should have used a coding process backed by a software package such as Nvivo. That would have improved the accuracy of the process and produced better results. However, the authors conducted the article review process manually. Fourth, this study considered only Scopus and Google Scholar indexes during the article search process. There are other databases, such as Web of Science, Econlit, etc., that the authors should have searched. Future researchers have the option of considering those databases to strengthen the definition of FL-RIE further. Fifth, this study did not conduct an extensive study to understand how past literature has defined the term effectiveness. The authors focused more on the examples of what the term might mean in different contexts rather than systematically defining effectiveness. Thus, the part regarding the effectiveness is underdeveloped, and the systematic approach to the literature is missing in this paper. Sixth, when proposing the definition, this study did not consider certain important dynamics of an organization. For example, according to the organizational maturity model, an organization experiences a stepwise development. An organization in the initial stage might not consider ensuring the well-being and the continuation of the ecosystem it operates. This study did not consider the impact of such dynamics on the proposed definition. Thus, future researchers can improve the proposed definition by overcoming limitations.

Apart from overcoming the limitations, future researchers can develop the mid-range and micro-level theoretical aspects of FL-RIE. The immediate possible contribution is developing a conceptual framework for FL-RIE to crystalize the building blocks of the concept. Researchers can use methodologies suggested by [13], [49], or [50] to develop the conceptual framework. Once the conceptual framework is ready, a measurement scale can be developed for FL-RIE. Such a contribution can ignite the usage of FL-RIE in quantitative empirical research. Furthermore, this study recommends FL-RIE as a factor that impacts on sustained competitive advantage and sustainability. Thus, new hypotheses can be developed with FL-RIE and tested empirically.

5. Conclusions

The literature on S-D logic explained FL-RIE as a firm’s resource deployment proficiency to create value. This study developed a definition that denotes FL-RIE not only as a firm’s resource deployment proficiency to create value, but also as an attribute that can assist a firm to continually develop its resource integration capability. Since resource integration is a dynamic capability, this study highlighted the possibility of considering FL-RIE as a potential contributor to establishing a firm’s sustained competitive advantage. Furthermore, this study discussed how FL-RIE could assist a firm in ensuring the sustainability of the ecosystem it operates. Thus, the research was able to extend the understanding associated with FL-RIE. Furthermore, this study highlighted the potential application of FL-RIE in strategic management and sustainability domains. Thus, by building on the foundation built by this research, future researchers must continue developing mid-range and micro-level theories related to FL-RIE to ensure practical validity.