Value, embodied in goods, services and in the process of offering them to customers, is today considered to be the core of business logic. The correct definition, measurement and analysis of value and the subsequent translation of its outcomes into action is essential for companies to be able to achieve competitive advantage (Gale et al. 1994; Woodruff and Gardial 1996, Holbrook 1996; Woodruff 1997; Payne and Holt 2001; Eggert and Ulaga 2002; Vargo and Lusch 2004).
The considered preparation of a value proposition depends first of all on recognizing what the value is and in what areas, activities consumers see it. However finding an answer to this question is one of the most difficult business tasks.
The problem of recognizing what has value for people and what it is and means for them is not only a matter of business practice. Questions about how people define value, prioritize its individual components and how they make decisions on the basis of valuation, have been the subject of scientific research for thousands of years and the search for answers to these questions has been dealt with by philosophers, sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists and economists.
This book assumes that people, when shopping, do so for a variety of reasons and that these actions always reflect their needs, although they may not always be realized. The rich and varying hierarchy of needs is derived from the individual’s value system. This evolves and changes under the influence of the environment, although it always reflects the individual’s worldview of what is good/bad, true/false, beautiful/ugly, wise/stupid etc. However economic sciences do not provide us with an answer to the question of what this value system, reflected later in economic choices, consists and how it works, because they do not explore it.1 However since the economic foundations of the models are based on foundations whose nature is recognized by other sciences it is the task of economists to constantly observe and take into account the achievements of the sciences which are concerned with mechanisms of individual and collective behaviour.
The following are the fragments of the scientific output of philosophy, sociology, psychology and economic sciences which contain the most important findings on how expected and experienced value can be perceived, what influences it and what relationships can take place between an individual and his or her environment, that then make them recognize something as valuable and influence their respective market choices.
1.1 Value as Philosophical Category
Philosophy is the science that has researched value and what it is for the longest time, in the most in-depth and consistent but mostly ethical and then aesthetic ways. In philosophy value is identified with virtue and goodness. Value is the main moral or transcendent category guiding the behaviour of individuals (Tatarkiewicz and Krajewski 1990, volume 1, p. 8). The theory of values is identified with an axiology within which it is examined/analyzed (see also Rogoziński 2011; Tischner 1993; Ingarden 1966; Znaniecki 1910):
- the nature of values: what is valuable and good and what is its nature: subjective and therefore relative, or absolute and objective;
- the sources, bases of value and the mechanisms of its creation, e.g. through valuation;
- classification and prioritization of values; distinguishing between immanent and instrumental values, which serve to achieve the former;
- shaping values in societies over a certain period of time and their impact on the lives of individuals and groups.
The above mentioned scope of axiology is a common subject of the research of philosophers, anthropologists, sociologists, cultural scientists, psychologists, or representatives of economic sciences (mainly those dealing with welfare economics or consumer behaviour), but the contribution of philosophers to the clarification and ordering of the first three aspects (apart from the analysis of valuation mechanisms) is the greatest.
This contribution of philosophy to knowing the nature of values is a consequence of the time and attention that has been devoted to it since the creation of the mother of all sciences. Questions about the nature of values have already been asked by classical philosophers and their views have become the nucleus of contemporary considerations evolving from monistic absolutism to pluralistic, epistemological, or finally post-modern value analysis.
1.1.1 The Essence and Foundation of Values in Philosophy—Immanent and Instrumental Values
The fundamental philosophical question (to which there is still no clear answer) is whether value (as a goodness, truth or beauty) exists in an objectified way or whether it is attributed to states (including things) by individuals. Philosophers have also been looking for what is the ultimate, most important value and try to determine what leads to it.
Many classical philosophical texts have attempted to prove that universal value as the supreme Goodness exists and is objective, independent of the judgement of individuals. Goodness has an immanent value, although various activities can lead to it, which by contributing to the achievement of goodness, have an instrumental value. This approach is evident in the Platonic recognition of value as a universal and transcendental category. Platonic absolutism is expressed in the claim that value exists independently of mankind and individual views and is expressed in moral standards superior even to God (Popkin and Stroll 1993, pp. 7–11). The continuators of such an approach can be found not only in classical, but also in contemporary philosophical texts. Almost all medieval philosophy was subordinated to this way of understanding reality, but it is also present in the form of categorical moral imperatives in Kant, in Rickert’s neocantism, Sheler’s phenomenology, or Hartmann’s texts (Hartmann 1987; Scheler 1973; Rickert 1986). In these perspectives values are ideal self-contained entities, existing independently of the perception of individuals and although contemporary philosophy has not abandoned the search for a universal, objectified value, it has to a large extent abandoned the perception of it as a monistic ideal.
In opposition to the trend of objectivity of values many, including classical philosophers, saw values as being dependent on the individual and differed in what they could constitute. Aristotle, a disciple of Plato, already questioned that Goodness was universal and claimed that people, in various ways of life, could consider it good because it was happy. Aristotle was therefore one of the first subjectivists and relativists of the value theory and for its quintessence (i.e. immanent value) he considered happiness—“the action of the soul in accordance with perfect virtue” (after Popkin and Stroll 1993, p. 7 et seq., Russell, p. 205). Happiness is not a goal but is created by human actions, engaging in various activities (which have instrumental value), and performing them gives a sense of happiness. People can achieve this by trial and error. According to Aristotle they will experience it to the fullest extent by acting in moderation and avoiding drifting towards extremes in which the virtues are to help them: courage as a means between cowardice and bravado; pride as a means between vanity and humility; and finally generosity as a means between profligacy and stinginess.
In philosophy the sources of values and ways of creating them were also sought. Epicur, the creator of hedonism, considered pleasure while avoiding suffering to be the overriding value, which today is mistakenly associated with the postulate of succumbing to temptations or making up for the senses as the overriding goal of human action (see e.g. Krokiewicz 1961; Popkin and Stroll 1993, pp. 19–26). According to Epicur only “net” pleasures have value, i.e. those that bring more pleasure than suffering not only to the individual but also to the environment. Epicur’s work has led to a distinction between the value of the means (an instrumental value) of achieving a goal and the value of the goal and effect itself. Thus the use of valuable, pleasant things can have a devastating effect (e.g. overeating sweets leads to obesity) and vice versa; fundamentally unpleasant activities can lead to net pleasure (e.g. tedious and painful exercises leading to improved health).