Corp Reputation Rev https://doi.org/10.1057/s41299-018-0049-4
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The Value of Nothing: Reconciling Cultural Capital in Society Debora E. Vollebregt1
Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature & Reputation Institute 2018
Abstract It is not yet fully understood why some places find it so much harder to put themselves on the map than others. In this case, Beverwijk, a regional town in the Netherlands, works hard to provide all of the basic services, but still has a nondescript reputation. A review of the existing literature will show that the centre of town as a marketplace of economic, human, social, cultural and natural capital is pivotal in the reputation of places. Furthermore, interviews with people living and working in or visiting Beverwijk have revealed that sociability and the aesthetics of cultural heritage generate associations which help us to recognise places and evoke the diffusion of values. This study suggests that places which focus primarily on functionality, instead of taking an integrative and normative approach around multiple capitals, have trouble gaining distinction from other places. Keywords Cultural capital Reputation of places Common space thinking Values Stewardship Stakeholder theory
Introduction Not only do businesses compete with one another; towns and cities are involved in fierce competition, too (Landry 2008). Why are some places so much more successful overall and able to create greater distinction than others? Or, as the economist Klamer depicts it, & Debora E. Vollebregt
[email protected] 1
CEO Centrum voor de Kunsten Beverwijk, Beverwijk, The Netherlands
Think of the great cities, cities where you want to spend a weekend with your lover, cities like Venice, New York, Amsterdam, Paris. No, Rotterdam probably is not one of them, and Arnhem most certainly not. What renders Venice so special? It is not the economics, nor is it the social cohesion among its citizens. It must be more than that. What do Venice, New York and Amsterdam have that Arnhem and Manchester do not? Is it something that standard economic analysis does not call attention to? (2002, p. 455). Klamer’s continues his observation by suggesting that the reputation of places transcends the realm of economics and is closely linked to the added value of cultural capital. According to Currid (2007), people want more than just a job. They want facilities that fit their lifestyle. She states that people in the post-industrialist world no longer move to where there is work, but that companies move to places where highly skilled people live. Places with a strong reputation are places which fulfil the needs of their citizens and stakeholders well. Rifkin (2000) describes how we have moved in the past decades from an industrial to a network society in which cultural production is increasingly more important. According to Landry (2008) some places have been lagging behind, as they did not know where to start, and are now trying hard to catch up. Conversely, Pratt is wary of places which present themselves as creative cities undeservedly. He believes they are merely ‘‘playing the trump card of creativity’’ (2011, p. 125) in place branding. Neither does Anholt believe that merely communicating about it will fundamentally change our perception of places, because in contrast to companies, places have far less control over the ‘product’. In his view a ‘‘‘brand’ is a word that captures the idea of reputation
D. E. Vollebregt
observed, reputation valued and reputation managed;’’ (2010, loc. 349). He continues by stating ‘‘that the reputations of places can only be meaningfully influenced by addressing their root causes’’ (2010, loc. 534). So place branding might not be the proper route to take when a place is struggling to keep up with the rest. Fombrun (2012) describes how a reputation in the resource based view can either grow with the acquisition of resources or subverted by the depletion of resources. From Klamer (2002) we already know places have multiple resources in both economic, social as well as cultural capital and Bourdieu (1986) argues that their recognition results in symbolic profits. The objective of this explorative study is to dig deeper for these root causes and study the effects of different forms of capital in general and cultural capital in particular on the perception of basic places with a nondescript reputation. Beverwijk, a regional town in the Netherlands, is such a place and therefore subject of this study. One of the participants said that Beverwijk ticks all the right boxes, however, people expect you to dislike it. This study will show that it takes more than the mere presence of multiple capitals to boost a reputation and that, as Moigneon and Ramanantsoa (1997) have put it, it is imperative there is a social space where these capitals can challenge each other.
Four Avenues of Thought Before we can take a closer look at what is the case in Beverwijk, first we have to understand why the concept of multiple capitals is not widely recognised. The worlds of economists and culturalists, as Klamer (2002) calls them, are miles apart and seem irreconcilable. He points out that they do not speak the same language. As the world of economists is much more dominant, culturalists, who are more concerned with cultural values, are forced to discuss them from an economic point of view. This is hardly possible as it is difficult to quantify cultural values in a monetary system. From experience culturalists can be equally single-minded and will do anything to preserve their paradigm, ‘‘art for art’s sake’’. If we recognise that the reputation of places transcends the realm of economics it would be wise to retrace our steps and give a short overview how our current thinking has become detached from reality. It is possible to distinguish three major avenues of thought (Fig. 1), ranging from a utilitarian and transactional view in an economic rationale to a view based on relationships and values in stakeholder and social welfare thinking. Although these latter views are no longer economics pur sang, they are still tied to it with an umbilical cord. To understand how the reputation of places is built, a fourth avenue is proposed based on an integral approach on
Fig. 1 Avenues of thought: paradox between utilitarian and normative views
multiple resources—including cultural capital—and the significance of a common space as a market of multiple capitals. First Avenue: Economic Thinking Economics Centre Stage As said, our world is dominated by economic thinking. According to Bourdieu (1986), economists have economised their models and frameworks so much that all that has remained in doing business is profit maximisation and self-interest. Porter and Kramer (2011) acknowledge that in the past decades companies have taken a too-narrow view of doing business and neglected the needs of society. They state it has not always been like that. In the past companies took on several roles. However, with the rise of the welfare state, those roles were delegated to government, and companies have become self-contained entities. At first society took for granted that conducting business was enough social benefit. Companies supplied employment, purchases, investments and taxes. On the other hand, society got little extra as profits rose. Schumacher (1973/ 2010) describes how ideas on economics originated in the context of the nineteenth century where economics was one conditional aspect of life. In the twentieth century, the next generations made those ideas their tools and placed them centre-stage. In his view, the dominant logic in economics is transactional and takes an exclusive market point of view with buyers, sellers and producers. He calls buyers ‘bargain
The Value of Nothing
hunters’ and points out that the word producer is misplaced; ‘‘for man is not a producer but only a converter’’ (1973/2010, p. 52). Intolerance of Qualitative Values At the same time, Schumacher points out consumption is only the means to an end. He describes how Eastern philosophies aim for maximum well-being. Schumacher argues economics should pay attention to people and not to goods. In his opinion, economics is not an exact science like physics where everything can be reduced to numbers. As a result, economics has become ‘intolerant’ of its qualitative values and anything ‘branded as uneconomic’ is seen as an ‘illness’ and therefore disregarded. We might deceive ourselves that things have changed since. Piketty (2014) has been able to show that after a sharp decline after the Second World War and a relatively stable period between 1950 and 1980, income inequality and the capital/ income ratio in the twenty-first century have reached again the levels of the nineteenth century. Economic thinking is very much alive and kicking. Second Avenue: Stakeholder Thinking Industrial Democracy The globalisation of industry made it necessary for businesses to broaden their strategic perspective. Freeman (1984/2010), one of the founders of stakeholder theory, explains how success in the ‘production view’ depending on satisfying suppliers—who delivered the resources—and customers—who bought the products—shifted to a ‘managerial view’. In the managerial view, a successful business not only satisfies suppliers and customers, but shareholders and employees as well. The 1970s was the start of a turbulent period during which shareholders wanted more control and foreigners entered local markets and often played by a different set of rules. At the same time, employees were increasingly reluctant to accept an authoritarian leadership style and were often customers, shareholders or members of interest groups as well. The 1970s were furthermore a period where the government became the public’s watchdog and where the mass media was able to show its teeth for the first time. Issues would no longer simply blow over, but were often there to stay. From this time onwards, the success of business has depended no longer on traditional stakeholders but on anyone who ‘‘… can affect or is affected by the achievement of the firm’s objectives’’ (Freeman 1984/2010, loc. 726).
Competitive Advantage Stakeholder theory is still largely focused on utility. Harrison et al. (2010) argue that when a business manages its stakeholders well, it will give this business competitive advantage and higher returns for the shareholders. The stakeholders’ well-being is still not their main concern, but what information stakeholders are willing to share with the business. This information can be used to the advantage of the business to increase demand, efficiency and the ability to deal with unexpected events, and create higher levels of innovation. Collective Values Other academics are more concerned for the stakeholders and do not agree that the purpose of a business is only about making a profit for the shareholders. Donaldson and Walsh (2015) claim the purpose of business is to create value does not cover it adequately either, and they reason its purpose is to optimise collective value. Values give people reason to act in certain ways. Donaldson and Walsh distinguish values, like providing for a good education or being able to travel the world, which are agent-specific and subject to personal taste; and intrinsic values, like trust, respect, freedom, which are generic. They suspect there might be an overarching value as well and settle for the time being on ‘happiness’. Donaldson and Walsh question why economic thinking shows so little interest in society and puts so much emphasis on the pursuit of personal values. Collective value is the sum of all values of all stakeholders involved in the business. Donaldson and Walsh realise this is too big a claim for a single company to fulfil and state that each business should nevertheless make contributions to the satisfaction of the values within its context. In their argument they incorporate not only present and future generations, but plead that ‘‘… business leaders the world over would do well to consider how their decisions do – or do not – honor their ancestors’ positive contributions to their lives’’ (2015, p. 196). Third Avenue: Social Welfare Thinking Interdependence of Business and Society Friedman (1970) considers social welfare as the result of economic welfare, and in his view business should shy away from collective responsibilities as it would otherwise enter the political arena, which is reserved for government. As opponents of this view, Jones et al. (2016) argue that this is hardly achievable, as society is dynamic and in reality the conditions can never be perfect. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a way to link economics and social
D. E. Vollebregt
welfare. Like stakeholder theory, the field of CSR is not new: it dates back to the 1960s. According to Porter and Kramer (2006), business has not adopted CSR voluntarily. Although the impact of their business on the social welfare of people might not be as large as is suggested, large corporations are often an easy target for inducing change in society. Nowadays most businesses recognise that businesses need a healthy society and society needs healthy businesses. However, instead of focusing too much on the tensions between business and society with the usual arguments like moral obligation, sustainability, licence to operate or reputation, Porter and Kramer propose a framework that recognises points of intersection between business and society.
Conceptual Fourth Avenue: Common Space Thinking
Hybrid Organisations and Joint Value Creation
Bourdieu (1986) distinguishes economic, social and cultural capital. Throsby (2003) defines cultural capital as both tangible—cultural heritage, artworks and artefacts—and intangible—sets of attitudes, practices and beliefs, and literature and music. Klamer (2002) underpins the idea that social and cultural capital fit many of the properties that economists have ascribed to capital in general. People have to invest to create and sustain social and cultural capital as well as economic capital. It can grow, but it can also shrink through use and wear and tear. For example, developing a taste for art requires an investment. Bourdieu (1986) states there are several types of exchange in addition to the marketplace. Profit is not solely monetary: there are other benefits as well. He regrets that the conversion and transmission of these other forms of capital is often ‘disguised’ in ‘unconscious’ and ‘symbolic’ profits, ‘‘[…] which reduces social exchanges to phenomena of communication and ignores the brutal fact of universal reducibility to economics’’ (1986, p. 54).
It is not as easy as it seems to mix social and economic values in business. This would require hybrid organisations. Battilana et al. (2012) describe how profit and nonprofit organisations are legally and financially organised differently. They furthermore distinguish profound differences between customers and beneficiaries. It is hard, if not impossible, to be both at the same time. Nevertheless, after the crisis of 2008 and the subsequent critique of the economic system, the appeal of hybrid organisations is growing. In addition, traditional profit and non-profit organisations are slowly moving in a hybrid direction, the latter mainly because they have to be financially more independent. Aside from the practical implications, there is the more fundamental issue of ‘joint value creation’. Bridoux and Stoelhorst (2016) describe how the ‘‘team production problem’’—the lack of willingness to contribute in joint value creation—is one of the main reasons economic thinking is so persistent. Inclusive Capital Market System Framework To harness both economic and social values, Coulson, Adams, Nugent and Haynes (2015) argue the ‘metaphor of capital’ is a useful concept that can remove the tension between the economical and uneconomical. Coulson et al. describe capital as ‘stores of value or wealth’. Value has to be interpreted as ‘of value for business’ and ‘of value for others’. This implies that capital and ownership are no longer necessarily related. Instead, Coulson et al. talk about stewardship of capital that is within control of the business or can be affected by the business. Their framework distinguishes financial, manufactured, intellectual, human, social and relationship, and natural capital.
Beyond the Market Place The concept of capital outside the realm of economics is not a random one. As Schumacher (1973/2010) states, economics is but one conditional aspect. A good starting point might be to reconcile ourselves with the other aspects, or as Bourdieu has put it: It is in fact impossible to account for the structure and functioning of the social world unless one reintroduces capital in all its forms and not solely in the one form recognized by economic theory (1986, p. 46).
Reconciling Cultural Capital in the Multiple Capital Framework Coulson et al. (2015) have not included cultural capital in their inclusive capital market system framework because of Bourdieu’s initial broad definition as both cultural and human capital. In a business setting, it might be somewhat understandable that Coulson et al. lump together cultural capital and human capital as human capital, or that Bourdieu himself clusters cultural capital and human capital as cultural capital as a way to explain social inequality and subsequently economic inequality. On the other hand, from a societal point of view, cultural capital deserves to be a capital in its own right. The first reason Coulson et al. give is that embodied cultural capital is a precondition for objectified cultural capital. One could argue just as well that embodied cultural capital is a precondition for manufactured capital, as all economic development stems from
The Value of Nothing
people (Schumacher 1973/2010). Still, manufactured and human capital are two different capitals in the inclusive capital market system. Secondly Coulson et al. categorise capital by carrier and describe that the carrier of human capital is an individual person. However, Klamer (2002) points out that cultural capital is not restricted to individuals. Cultural capital is common property, because organisations, cities, nations can have cultural capital, too. As the recognition of the six capitals as described by Coulson et al. will likely grow with the introduction of integral reporting, it would be easiest to add cultural capital as number seven. For the convenience of this argument and because still many academics talk about economic capital as a cluster of financial and manufactured capital, and see intellectual capital as part of human capital, in the concept of multiple capitals five capitals can be distinguished: human capital, social capital, cultural capital, natural capital and economic capital. Common Space Thinking Versus Cluster Thinking Figure 2 shows that in economic thinking, stakeholder thinking and social welfare thinking, everything revolves around business with an expanding view of society. According to Porter and Kramer (2011), cluster thinking should be the new paradigm. A cluster is a geographical concentration of interrelated companies such as manufacturers, suppliers, service providers and logistics companies, but also schools, universities and trade associations. The
multiplier effect of a cluster is key to overall productivity and innovation. Have Porter and Kramer with their clusters just reinvented towns and cities? Instead of turning the world upside down, society, not business, is pivotal. The members of society cluster together in cities, towns and villages (Florida 2008), because it is not profit they are after, but the benefits of a common space. The Where Factor and Means Migration Most people think that with globalisation in general and the technological revolution in particular the world is becoming flat. They assume people are no longer tied to places, as business can be done anywhere in the world nowadays. A common space seems no longer to be important. According to Florida (2008), the opposite is true. The world is becoming ‘spiky’ rapidly. Florida (2008) opines that the ‘where’ factor is as important to people as ‘what’ and ‘who’. He claims that 75% of the people who live in the megaregions have chosen to live there. The only way to explain why people prefer to live in cities, where it is more expensive, than living anywhere else, is because people want to cluster together. Florida points out that cities have a mix of values, skills and talents that cannot be matched by business. Although one might expect the opposite, the choice of where to live even seems more important and decisive now people are able to move more easily from one place to another. Florida calls this phenomenon a clustering of people. Economic migration has been superseded by ‘means migration’. Florida (2008) explains that the clustering force has an unexpected multiplier effect—as the population in these megaregions grows, economic progress grows faster. In our post-industrial society, economic growth is no longer linked to where most people live, but to where the most skilled people live. The clustering force is strongest when social capital is formed by ‘bridging’ weak ties, instead of ‘bonding’ close ties like family. According to Florida ‘‘[the] beauty of weak ties is that they bring us new information’’ (2008, p. 110). He describes how the clustering of weak ties occurs everywhere and on any scale. In the business world, it can happen, for instance, over lunches. In the art world it is usually called a ‘scene’ where like-minded people meet. Post-industrialism and Disoriented Places
Fig. 2 Avenues of thought: number of capitals
In this respect, the competition between places is as fierce as the competition between businesses (Landry 2008), and their success depends just as much on the make-up of their resources and the optimisation of value creation (Donaldson and Walsh 2015). Whereas the shift from manufacturing to knowledge-based industries in our western world has had a massive impact on the places we live in, cities
D. E. Vollebregt
like New York, Amsterdam and Paris, which have a strong, longstanding cultural reputation, as Klamer (2002) observes, have even been able to strengthen that position since the 1970s (Currid 2007). Landry (2008) describes how other places have become disoriented and most still have to adapt to the new paradigm of post-industrialism. He argues that, like industry, places have to shift from material resources to people’s resources, from a natural landscape to a sensory landscape. Post-industrialist places need the hard infrastructure of urban engineering and the soft or mental infrastructure of ‘third places’, besides home and work, where people can meet to exchange ideas. Places that meet the lifestyle of their residents, places that have a mix of industries are much more resilient to change and can recover more quickly from economic crisis (Currid 2007). Places that foster creativity, in the broadest sense of the word, can turn into hotspots for innovation (Landry 2008). Common Space and Reputation According to Fombrun (2012) there is no single route to a strong reputation, but it is a set of complex systems. What they entail has been described often and extensively before. By combining different existing theories he puts together a sequence of context, strategy, identity, reputation, support and performance in an attempt to explain how they are related. Different forms of capital is one of the cogs in the machine. Fombrun makes an invitation for further exploration and development of his theory. Bourdieu (1986) describes how symbolic capital is generated when different capitals become meaningful through interaction of people. It is slightly confusing that he calls symbolic capital an overarching type of capital which can be derived from both economic, social and cultural capital, because at the same time he defines capital as accumulated labour. Symbolic capital, however, is not the fruit of labour or energy spent by the actors, but the aggregate perceptions by others (Siisia¨inen 2000) and as such much more related to reputation before all else. Although Bourdieu identifies power as one of the main forms of symbolic capital, others argue that trust and reputation can be put in the same light (Siisia¨inen 2000; Hahn et al. 2007) and that power and reputation are linked (Govers and Go 2009; Castells 2010/ 1996). Symbolic capital is the distinction others bestow on you when they recognise the presence of the economic, social and cultural resources you can draw on (Bourdieu 1986). This would mean that without this recognition places will have no symbolic capital nor reputation despite the presence of multiple capitals. Again what, how, who is not enough to explain why people might get interested in the first place. As Bourdieu (1998) explains interest means to ‘‘be there’’. To be there where they can participate in what he calls the game. According to Anholt the lack of
interest is the main reason why most place branding campaigns fail: ‘‘unless people are listening, they won’t hear’’ (2010, loc. 2385). People will only show interest when it is relevant to them. Common Space as a Market for Multiple Capitals Aesthetics and basic services are the two most important factors which determine whether we are happy where we live. Despite these findings, Florida (2008) observes that often only basic services like education, safety and infrastructure receive adequate attention from the local authorities. A modern place takes care to create central public spaces where people from different parts of town mix and ideas can be exchanged on what Landry (2008) calls ‘neutral territory’. He explains that in the traditional make-up of places this usually is the town square where you would find a church, castle or town hall, market hall and library, museum or university. The exchange between spiritual, worldly, commercial and cultural power used to take place in the middle of the square. Moigneon and Ramanantsoa take it a step further and argue you cannot separate a place from people. Social space is made up of different fields which act as markets in which agents endowed with different capitals confront one another. A field is a space of positions on the inside of which an effect of field is exerted (1997, p. 388). People are not aware of the conditioning and power struggles that takes place in these spaces which results in shared values and a common identity (Moigneon and Ramanantsoa 1997; Govers and Go 2009). Castells puts it even more boldly and states […] space is not a reflection of society, it is its expression. In other words: space is not a photocopy of society, it is society (2010/1996, p. 441).
Findings of an Exploration into the Reputation of Beverwijk In the first part of this explorative study we have argued why we have to reconcile ourselves with the concept of multiple capitals, including cultural capital. The next step is to study the effects of multiple capitals on the perception of basic places with a nondescript reputation. Beverwijk, a regional town in the Netherlands, is such a place and the second part of this study will explore why Beverwijk finds it so hard to develop itself as an attractive place. Beverwijk can best be characterised as a small regional town in the Netherlands with a population of 40,000. It operates in a
The Value of Nothing
global economy on the fringes of the fourth largest megaregion in the world (Florida 2008). Hardly anyone knows this place. The place was once famous for its many shopping malls, but nowadays each place have their own. The Bazaar, Europe’s largest indoor market, might still be quite popular, but the traffic jams it used to cause every weekend belong to the past. Sometimes people know its burns centre from the media, but that is hardly ever associated with positive events. The seaside is a surfer’s paradise, as the two-kilometre-long breakwater causes nice waves. Sunbathers, on the other hand, shun the beaches, because if you turn your head, you face the huge factories of Tata Steel. How could this be more different from towns and cities in the vicinity: Alkmaar, Haarlem, Zaandam. Those places are not unfamiliar to people outside the Netherlands, either. However, even those places cannot surpass a world-renowned city like Amsterdam. It is only 25 km as the crow flies from Beverwijk. It ranks 11th in the City RepTrak (Reputation Institute 2017). It is of little use to make an attempt to compare Amsterdam with Beverwijk, whose name does not even ring a bell and whose existence people know only by association. The local authority (Gemeente Beverwijk 2014) and local business community believe sustainable economic progress, employment, tourism and environment are the keys to success and prosperity. Every year the Reputation Institute (2017) conducts a study of ‘‘The 100 World’s Most Reputable Cities’’. As part of this study, the City RepTrak Pulse measures the admiration, esteem, trust and feeling of these cities. Visiting, investing, living, working, buying and attending/ organising events are ascribed as supportive behaviours. The key dimensions of the City RepTrak are advanced economy, effective government and an appealing environment. The factors in the Place and Happiness Survey as the Gallup Organization has conducted (Florida 2008) are aesthetics and lifestyle, basic services, openness, economic and personal security, and leadership. From a multiple capital perspective both the City RepTrak and the Place and Happiness Survey show that cultural, social and human capital is leading in the reputation of a place and economic capital is far less important. However, neither of those studies asks their respondents questions that might indicate how and where the associated attributes interact. This could imply that the effects of a social space (Moigneon and Ramanantsoa 1997) could be easily missed; especially the effects which might be helpful to basic places with a nondescript reputation to enhance their reputation. In this explorative study six participants acquainted with Beverwijk were interviewed in-depth. All participants are highly educated and working in different businesses in either middle or top management. They were chosen because they are familiar with the dominant logic in
economic thinking. They were probed to reveal their motivations outside the economic realm and thus get clues how the multiple capitals interact. In the interviews a projective technique was used. The participants were shown a not place-specific story and picture at first. About halfway through the interview the participants were shown a story and picture about Beverwijk. However, in both cases the stories were identical as it contained generic examples true to both Beverwijk and other places associated with natural, economic, human, social and cultural capital. Only the pictures differed: the first was unidentifiable, the second was a picture of Beverwijk. In the second stage of the interview extra attention was paid to unearth the reasons for the often fierce and emotional reaction to the story and picture of Beverwijk. The responses were screened for what people revealed on the added value to live in, work in and visit certain places in relation to the availability and accessibility of different forms of capital, their relative weighting, and how capital accumulated in the past influences the current reputation of a place. As a result, in addition to aesthetics, which is already recognised in either case by the City Rep Trak and the Place and Happiness Survey, two more crucial and interrelated attributes emerged of which the first sociability, can directly be linked to the effects of a common space. The second attribute peacefulness, on the other hand, can be seen as its opposite. The Availability and Accessibility of Multiple Capitals and the Importance of the Centre of Town The first question to answer is how the availability of and the accessibility to different forms of capital rate on people’s evaluation of basic places. Without exception, all participants in this study express that Beverwijk is anything but a beautiful and sociable place. The participants briefly touch upon the dimensions or factors as used in the City RepTrak or Place and Happiness Survey. Basic services are no issue at all. Beverwijk ticks all the right boxes, as one participant puts it. The economy is doing fine, too. Beverwijk has many respected businesses besides Tata Steel that are well-known inside the national business world. Opinions are somewhat divided on government. According to one of the participants, you should not rely on rumours; another thinks the present government is doing much better than previous ones. Air quality is an important factor in the Place and Happiness Survey, and the participants all express their concern with health issues related to Tata Steel. Still, these remarks seem of less significance and indicate no direct link with the dimension of appealing environment or aesthetics. If the supportive behaviours of the participants in this study are compared, all participants indicate that in their
D. E. Vollebregt
choice of domicile the presence of natural, social and cultural capital takes precedence over the presence of economic capital. The presence of human capital like schools is hardly touched upon. So why does an apparent advanced economy and effective government not compensate for the perception of Beverwijk as a highly unattractive place. When viewing the ‘availability’ and ‘accessibility’ of the multiple capitals singly, this study did not find a strong relation with the evaluation of places. People are much more pragmatic. Participants indicate that you cannot always have it both ways. If it is not available where you live, you go and find it elsewhere. If it is not accessible, you either cope with it, or go elsewhere too. Participants do not mind travelling for an hour to work each day as they value a larger affordable living space. One of the participants, who values the features of pre-war architecture, describes how people adapt to the circumstances of old neighbourhoods. The lack of parking spaces is absolutely no reason for him to move to a new development. Accessibility, however, did influence another participant’s decision to leave the city. Eventually she was fed up with climbing the stairs of her apartment with little children several times a day and wanted to live on the ground floor. Beverwijk is still close to Amsterdam, which means she is getting the best of both worlds. Despite their pragmatism, despite ticking all the right boxes, Beverwijk still gets a bad evaluation from all participants. There is no difference between participants who have lived in Beverwijk all their lives, who have moved there in recent years, who only visit the place occasionally or who only know Beverwijk by association. Beverwijk is perceived as a basic, functional place. One of the participants shares his feelings:
[shop], I just park my car and be gone again. I have never taken a proper look at a building in Beverwijk. Never ever, I think. […] Not even the Agatha church [at Breestraat], whereas it’s definitely beautiful. […] Plainly [Beverwijk] hasn’t got it. They clearly expect the centre of town to satisfy more than the basic necessities of utility. Another participant told me his wife goes into town to do essential shopping, but they visit Amsterdam for concerts, plays, museums and the like. The importance of a town centre is not unique to Beverwijk, as one participant explains: In fact the centre of town is the place, I think. It’s the experience. Because if I say it’s so sociable in Amsterdam, I don’t mean neighbourhoods like Nieuw-West. […] The centre of town determines the atmosphere. Always. Also when you’re on a holiday […].The centre of town colours the experience. Of course everything is located there. […] A long time ago I used to visit Berlin regularly, and I really think it’s a shitty place. If you think by yourself, why, it’s because I nowhere get the feeling: this is the centre of town […]. This is where the alleys are, where it is secure and where we can walk from A to B to nowhere. Sociability and the Diffusion of Values
All participants agree however that Beverwijk has no town centre worth mentioning. It is clear that whether people see Beverwijk favourably or not is strongly linked to their perception of the main street (Breestraat) in the centre of town.
The most salient word participants used in association with the centre of town, is ‘‘gezellig’’. This word, however, can mean many things in Dutch. It can mean ‘good looking and inviting’, ‘sociable’ or ‘cosy’. If people keep bandying it about, it tends to become meaningless. The findings of this study demonstrate that the best way to translate ‘gezellig’ in English is ‘sociable’, and that the expression is much more meaningful than one might expect, if not crucial for the reputation of basic and functional places. When it does not receive the right attention, places like Beverwijk will miss out. In the light of this study, we have to take ‘sociable’ in its true meaning. In Latin ‘‘socius’’ means companion. The Collins dictionary describes sociable as ‘‘an occasion providing the opportunity for friendliness and conviviality’’. The Dutch word ‘‘gezellig’’ has a similar root in the Germanic language, as ‘‘gezel’’ means companion as well. The soft infrastructure of places is paramount (Landry 2008) and cafe´s, restaurants and nightlife are crucial for fostering weak social ties (Currid 2007). Or, as a participant who aspires to a career with an international company explains:
Breestraat. Beverwijk, when you walk around, it’s just functional. When I have to go to the HEMA
If I did not have a small child and my career would take me abroad. Let’s take England for the sake of the
Beverwijk has everything you need, I think. Primary schools, secondary schools, a cinema, sporting facilities. If you want some space like a house with a garden, you can find it there as well. [It is within my] social network as I described earlier. You could say it ticks all the right boxes, it is all there. However, I don’t know how to express myself, it’s a feeling. It might be what you are used to, but I would not easily choose Beverwijk, because I don’t think it is a very sociable town.
The Value of Nothing
argument […]. In that case I would probably make the choice to live in the city centre of London for example – apart from the fact whether it is affordable or not – because you have to build a new life, a new social environment. I think this will be easier in a vibrant city centre than in a little village in the countryside or in one of London’s suburbs. […] I do think it has certain hotspots, which attract locals as well. This can be public places. It can be nightlife, like restaurants, pubs, party like stuff. Another participant describes in detail what actually takes place in sociable places. It is not just meeting people to strengthen weak ties, exchanging ideas and leveraging social capital in economic capital (Florida 2008): Sociable means a warm atmosphere created by sidewalk cafe´s, little corners, trees and the buzz and soft talk around you. The sound of beer glasses and a great conversation amongst friends. [That setting] provides extra topics. There is nothing as good as observing people and sharing your observations with the other people in your party. Yet another participant elaborates how a sociable centre of town is a precondition for the diffusion of values (Schumacher 1973/2010): Sociable is not an accurate word. It has to be interesting too. It must rouse my curiosity, it has to be captivating. Something like: Gee, I see all this very nice architecture, or I see all these historic things, or I spot these fascinating people. It has to stimulate you, you have to get inspired. It can be people, too. […] Well it’s not that I instantly get brilliant ideas or something like that. But you keep in touch with what’s going on. I think that’s important. That’s why we go to Amsterdam now and again: to know what’s up. She further explains how crucial the type of people are who share the same, or almost the same, values. Another participant shares that he does not meet kindred people in Beverwijk, as he explains Beverwijk has no sidewalk cafe´s worth mentioning. He says he of course knows where they are, but he does not want to go there. If you sit down in a sidewalk cafe´ in Beverwijk, you don’t see people you know, but if you sit down in Amsterdam, you see people who could have been your friends. I have never felt the inclination to sit down [at the Breestraat]. I have never tried. I have never ever sat down in a sidewalk cafe´ here. No. The centre of town is not just a neutral territory for facilitating the exchange of ideas (Landry 2008) and
trading the multiple capitals; a town centre is also a place to hang out and to see and be seen. Words like sociability, ambiance or vibrant mean a space has the right atmosphere to instigate enough trust between people to share values through either explicit communication or implicit observation. Landry envisions ‘‘the ascendance of the marketplace as an arbiter of value and taste’’ (2008, p. 31). Maybe this has always been the case, because the behaviour the participants describe is neither new nor unique; we are just starting to reconcile ourselves again with its notions in the context of the places in which we live. The preconditions for kick-starting the clustering force (Florida 2008) and setting the process of diffusion of values in motion are third spaces other than home or work (Landry 2008) and a critical mass (Currid 2007; Florida 2008) of social, cultural and human capital in that space. The centre of town is the ultimate common space. Aesthetics and the Importance of Cultural Capital Accumulated in the Past The second question is how capital accumulated in the past influences the current evaluation of basic places. It is easy to imagine how we can pass on tangible capital, like property, from generation to generation and how each new generation more or less benefits from it. It gets more complicated if we are considering intangible capital. It is less obvious how the history of a place influences our present and future attitudes and behaviours. A participant explains how the influx of people from other countries and places shape a place as new cultures bring new ideas. He argues it is not the first time in history that this has happened, and places usually benefit. He acknowledges it can have disadvantages as well. Beverwijk is an industrial town, and he points out that the people who have moved here from different parts of the country or different countries are predominantly working class. Currid (2007) and Landry (2008) describe in a similar way how important the influx of people from outside has been, and still is, to cities like New York and London. We have to take a closer look at our present attitudes and behaviour, to understand the importance of the past. Most participants indicate that they like to live in characteristic places and neighbourhoods. At first glance, anyone would probably label this as the aesthetics of a place. ‘Beauty and physical setting’ is one of the top factors in the Place and Happiness Survey (Florida 2008), ‘beautiful city’ the most important attribute in the City RepTrak (Reputation Institute 2016). Unfortunately, aesthetics is not as simple as that, because the participants in this study indicate that they are much more attracted to cultural heritage than to new developments. The latter cause mixed and opposing feelings. A participant states:
D. E. Vollebregt
A new building can be architectonically nice and interesting. Or not. Or ugly as hell. Or a disgrace. That too. Of course, as much as new developments can be beautiful.
Then he explains how current developments in those historic buildings can be traced back to past undertakings which bring rich associations. Another participant tells a similar story when she is asked how aesthetics incites her:
It is not easy to explain why one building is more beautiful than another, or as another participant downplays it: ‘‘Yes, why do I like a rose better than a dandelion?’’ Differences of opinion often refer to shared values (Moigneon and Ramanantsoa 1997), and the new developments seem not to reveal them as much as historic buildings do. One participant explains why he prefers to live in an old neighbourhood and clearly links aesthetics to social capital accumulated in the past and the values he holds in common with his neighbours:
It can be a story. Hey, last week I was at the Lloyd Hotel [Amsterdam]. That’s when you experience it straightaway. You walk in and think: this has been a juvenile detention centre for 40 years. When you walk around you can still see the juvenile detention centre: you’re very conscious it’s the place where so many people have been imprisoned […]. But also that it has been a reception centre for people who were about to be deported in the war. Well, that’s what gets me thinking when I pass there or go in. I think that’s inspiring. I think that’s important, too.
I like a neighbourhood built in the 1930s. I love old junk, as I call it, it’s snug. I like the style of the 1930s, I think it’s sociable. I don’t like those spacious residential areas. It’s definitely functional, but it lacks some sort of cosiness. […] I think new developments are often simply too extensive. It really takes years for it to get sociable. The importance of cultural heritage seems to suggest that it is cultural capital that has a profound effect on the reputation of places, moreover because cultural capital is a commonly held resource (Klamer 2003). However the effect of works of art in public places is limited and causes as much debate as new developments (Currid 2007). In addition, the Place and Happiness Survey shows that cultural offerings are not as important as cultural heritage (Florida 2008). One of the interviews took place in the local theatre in Beverwijk, which is a modern building from the 1970s, and the participant explains why he is not impressed by the place. This theatre where we are right now is not a hundred years old, I think. Maybe there has been something in the past, but it is not a historic building when I take a look at it. That means there is nothing going on here. You only come here for a reason. If I had to visit this area of Beverwijk, it would just be because I want to take music lessons or see a play or anything like that. You won’t stroll around here for fun, anyhow that’s not the impression I got. Of course I have been in this area before, but it isn’t appealing. On the other hand, in an old town it’s fun to walk about. At least that’s what I think. That’s a firm statement, but […] if there is no past, or the history of a place is limited, then it is harder to make associations. That doesn’t have to be bad, because you can see a beautiful play anyhow, but you can’t say anything about what performances would have been like a hundred years ago. […] That would be it.
As we get so much information every day, associations help us to recognise a place. Only a few places are able to achieve general recognition, but negative associations are hard to get rid of (Landry 2008). The city in its totality is a bundle of associations and has connotations from the physical to the intangible, to stories, images, products or even ideas. Generating associations is complex. It takes a long time (2008, p. xlvi). Associations do get stronger if people are more actively involved and if these new associations are either consistent with existing associations or more surprising (Keller 1993). When people shape places for their present use, they should be more aware of the consequences of their decisions. How do their decisions affect future generations or what associations do they eradicate when they stop honouring the contributions of earlier generations (Donaldson and Walsh 2015). Landry (2008) advises places to involve historians and anthropologists in place marketing. Peacefulness, Nature and Space Versus Buzz The third question is what people reveal about the relative weighting of the different forms of capital of basic places. As well as aesthetics and sociability, the peacefulness of natural capital and spacious residential areas is the third characteristic that keeps coming back in the interviews. People usually see nature and space as a luxury and underrate its aesthetic value. It could improve the impression of poor neighbourhoods, for example (Florida 2008). Nevertheless, the results show that the aesthetics of the natural capital of a place and spacious residential areas serve a different purpose than the aesthetics of historic buildings, and at the same time cannot be dissociated from it. A place’s natural capital is like an antidote to the overkill of any other capital. Most people actually want to live in a village (Landry 2008). The participants also want a garden, park or something more distinguishing like the
The Value of Nothing
Dutch beaches and dunes close at hand of which Beverwijk has plenty. They also indicate that they spend at least part of their holidays at places where they can climb mountains or go for sailing trips. A participant explains you need the peace and quiet, and the security of your home just as much as you need the buzz of the centre of town. [Home] truly is a comfortable place, it is like a cocoon sometimes. […] When I come home from work, I think home should be a place where I feel safe and comfortable. It doesn’t have to be a historic place, but maybe, as we find out now, that’s why I want to live near a vibrant, historic place. […] Besides that, I like to have some green in the vicinity. That should be within walking or cycling distance as well. […] I like its peacefulness, so for that matter, the contrast of the liveliness of a centre and the quiet of nature. Another participant does not mind driving to visit friends all around the country, but when it comes to peacefulness he wants it close at hand. Recreation is supposed to be non-committal. It should never be an undertaking. You can go straight away when you’re free. You shouldn’t have to think about it. For instance if I want to take out Job, my son, I can put him in his push car and go for a walk. I don’t have to take the car and all other stuff. I don’t need to plan it. Now I am at liberty to go whenever I want to. I think that’s nice. He also elaborates on his time in Zurich where all foreign students lived at the same dorm in the centre of town. Accidentally he lived very quietly at the fringe of town near the woods where he could cycle. Ultimately he felt very lucky to be able to retreat to this place after a day in town. All exchange students went to the pub two nights a week. In the end I was more than happy I could retreat to the outskirts and be at Marcus’s place [landlord][…]. A place I could blissfully retreat to and have a peaceful weekend without the clamour of other people. On the other hand when it is [quiet] too long, I want to go back. […] I want to be where there is a lot of hustle and bustle. I like to talk and I like the excitement, however once in a while there is nothing better than to be at a place with no commotion. It is definitely true that people move to different places and houses at different stages of life, whether you are ‘young and restless’ or ‘married with children’, as Florida (2008) puts it. The different forms of capital seem to take a different equilibrium at every stage of life. However, at every stage of life, you need both the hustle and bustle of
the centre of town and the peacefulness of natural environment.
Discussion: From Marketplace to Common Space We like to think that we are shifting from a predominantly utilitarian to a more normative way of thinking; however, to cross into a society that values all its different capitals equally we might have to adopt a language that is rooted in a common space and less in economics. The talk of the marketplace prevents us to see how the multiple capitals interact and cultural capital tends to be belittled. Culture is not just the icing on the cake or meaningless, cultural capital is just as quintessential for the reputation of places as the other forms of capital. As a consequence, this study suggests the adaptation of some new basic principles (Table 1). From Transactions to Values The places we live in, work in and visit reveal that there is more to life than transactions in the marketplace (Currid 2007; Florida 2008; Landry 2008). The economic system is part of a much larger system of value creation where many processes are at work simultaneously. At the heart of this system are values. Values drive the system—as values drive human behaviour—and values spring from the system—as the system helps people to realise certain values (Battilana et al. 2012; Donaldson and Walsh 2015; Klamer 2003). The resources feeding the system of value creation are five types of capital—social, human, cultural, natural and economic. The added value for people to live in, work in and visit certain places is most of the time very personal (Donaldson and Walsh 2015) and depends highly on their stage of life (Florida 2008). Nevertheless the aesthetics of a place is an intrinsic value which is widely recognised (Florida 2008; Landry 2008; Reputation Institute 2017). The participants in this study have indicated it gives them warm feelings, and those warm feelings are probably synonymous with well-being or happiness. However, aesthetics is not the Table 1 Basic principles of common space Common space thinking, basic principles Why
Values
What
Multiple capitals
How
Energy conversion
Who
Players
Where
Common space
When
Stewardship
D. E. Vollebregt
only intrinsic value they mentioned. Actually, we have to pay more attention to the expressions people use on a daily basis to understand what is meaningful. At the top of the list are sociability and its counterpart. The antonym for sociable is not, however, asocial. The expression the participants used was peaceful, as in calm and quiet. From Economic Capital to Multiple Capitals The correlation between the different forms of capital is not fully clear. It seems the different forms of capital affect each other both positively and negatively (Bourdieu 1986; Coulson et al. 2015; Currid 2007; Florida 2008; Landry 2008; Klamer 2002, 2003; Throsby 1999, 2003). If we still have doubts as to whether there is a correlation, we might try to view each capital as a self-contained system. This is virtually impossible, as an externality will always pop up which cannot be explained inside that system. If we assume that the multiple capitals are interdependent, Fig. 3 shows what the equilibrium might look like. However, real life is not a lab where you can change your variables at will (Jones et al. 2016). People are much more pragmatic. If a capital is not available or accessible in one place, they do not hesitate to find it somewhere else. This suggests that people try to establish their personal equilibrium of capitals based on both intrinsic and personal values and try to match it with the equilibrium of capitals of places. The closer the fit, the better the reputation of a place. In line with Currid’s (2007, p. 11) remark that artists ‘‘need New York as much as the city needs them,’’ one could say that people need the multiple capitals of a place as much as the place needs the multiple capitals people bring with them.
From Money to Energy Already in the nineteenth century Oscar Wilde wrote in his novel the Picture of Dorian Gray that ‘‘Nowadays people know the price of everything, and the value of nothing.’’ Instead, if we adopt Bourdieu’s (1986) concept that capital is converted through energy and not through the exchange of money, it will be possible to break free from economics and transcend the qualitative-quantitative paradox. We have become so used to money as a concept for exchange that it seems we have forgotten that money originates from the marketplace and should stay there. Money is best understood as a good itself and should not be mistaken for a concept to describe the conversion of capital. In the concept of energy, it is possible to encompass the nonhuman activity of natural capital too. From Stakeholders to Players The diffusion of values is an important property in a common space. Although stakeholder theory has been widely adopted nowadays, not only by business but also by other organisations, it stems from the marketplace. Unilateral transactions have made room for multilateral interactions with stakeholders. Neither does the word ‘stakeholder’ hold a very positive connotation, nor does the word ‘affect’ come into its definition (Freeman 1984/2010; Harrison et al. 2010). It will be very hard to build fruitful relationships if the parties involved ‘hold on’ to their stakes, and if the parties can affect each other so easily, this suggests that at least one party is at the receiving end of the relationship. The tensions between stakeholders and unsolved issues will pile up further in a context of multiple capitals, as they already do. There is not just inequality in economic capital, but in human and social capital as well (Bourdieu 1986; Florida 2008; Piketty 2014). Would it not be better to talk about players, like in a band or an orchestra? At least playing together would suggest more equality, as players have to work together to achieve a common goal and have to know where they fit in the bigger picture. The key to success is mutual respect (Donaldson and Walsh 2015) and justice and fairness for all (Jones et al. 2016). From Points of Intersection to Common Space
Fig. 3 Star model equilibrium multiple capitals
So far, the basic principles of a common space consists of ‘why’ (values), ‘what’ (capital), ‘how’ (energy conversion) and ‘who’ (players). We also have to take into account the ‘where’ factor (Florida 2008). Most people know this by instinct. In the pursuit of values, we need each other (Bridoux and Stoelhorst 2016), and at the points where our personal values intersect with the values of others,
The Value of Nothing
opportunities arise to fulfil these values (Porter and Kramer 2006). Towns and cities have literally developed at the crossroads of people. This is where people who hold common values cluster together (Florida 2008) and build a common space. The participants in this study have made it clear how crucial the centre of town is as a neutral territory (Landry 2008). In third places—which are not home or work—like squares, restaurants, cafe´s and sidewalk cafe´s (Landry 2008), people can draw on their weak ties and exchange ideas (Currid 2007). Other than that, this study has shown that if the centre of town is sociable and beautiful, it will evoke many associations. Associations are networks of memories which can be retrieved through a stimulus (Gray and Bjorklund 2014). The participants have indicated that a town centre is more sociable and stimulating if it is a tight network of variegated experiences in its own right. It will be much more difficult if those experiences are scattered or driven back to the outskirts (Currid 2007). In fact, when people have those associations, they diffuse values (Schumacher 1973/2010) and this cannot be seen separately from a common space (Moigneon and Ramanantsoa 1997). From Ownership to Stewardship The idea that capital is hereditary is recognised by all discussed avenues of thought. In economics, growth is the mantra, with human capital we can build on the ideas and knowledge of previous generations, and with cultural capital we enjoy the beauty of works of art and architecture, which in some cases date back for millennia. This study has shown the importance of cultural capital, and cultural heritage in particular. It is not just people who evoke associations with other people; the participants in this study have indicated that associations with the past help to make sense of the present. Cultural capital gives us identity (Throsby 1999). As players in a common space, it would be better to speak of stewardship instead of ownership. If we want to preserve our capital for the next generation, we have to look after our physical and mental legacy (Coulson et al. 2015; Donaldson and Walsh 2015; Schumacher 1973/2010). However, we have to bear in mind that capital is a resource that not only brings us value, but has to be kept fluid through value creation. In this light, we should ask ourselves whether tourism is truly creating value or is it only feeding off cultural capital (Landry 2008).
A Final Note At present Beverwijk is a basic place. If places focus on functionality and are disconnected from their values, it is likely that those places will have trouble attracting talent and other resources and building a good reputation (Fombrun 2012). This study has shown that people care about aesthetics, sociability and peacefulness, and that these three intrinsic values drive the reputation of a place. Aesthetics is a value strongly connected to the cultural capital of a place, and cultural heritage in the form of cultural capital accumulated in the past in particular. Sociability is not only social capital, as the word might suggest, but this study has shown that it is intertwined and therefore interdependent with human and cultural capital. Peacefulness is strongly associated with a place’s natural capital. Beverwijk does not have to worry about its natural capital, as it is a seaside resort and the residential areas are spacious. However aesthetics and sociability are definitely major issues: people need common spaces where they can have meaningful experiences and diffuse ideas of value. If Beverwijk wants to shed its image as the ugly duckling and embark on a reputational journey, it has to do more than investing in economic capital and communicating about it. Places like Beverwijk have to find their niche (Landry 2008). Finding your own niche means that you build on associative networks that are already in place (Gray and Bjorklund 2014; Keller 1993) and that appeal to the imagination of the people living in, working in and visiting Beverwijk. Things are much harder for places like Beverwijk which cannot draw on a good reputation and are branded as uninterestingly. They would be better off communicating what they are aiming to become (Anholt 2010). If the results of this study are compared with the results of the City RepTrak (Reputation Institute 2017) and the Place and Happiness Survey (Florida 2008), the aesthetics of a place is at the top the list in all three of them. Although both City RepTrak and the Place and Happiness Survey show the importance of their attributes and the correlation with supportive behaviour, they fail to show how the attributes are interrelated themselves. They build on existing assumptions about economics, leadership and governance, basic services which are mainly utilitarian, and ignore other resources that create value for people. In this study, an integrative and normative approach to the multiple capitals was taken. The mere availability and accessibility of the different forms of capital in places is, in spite of this, not enough to gain distinction. The in-depth interviews and socio-analytical approach uncovered why and how they get meaningful in a common space where people can trade and convert them. Because reputation is built on associations (van Riel and Fombrun 2007), it might
D. E. Vollebregt
be interesting in future research to explore how associations like sociability and peacefulness generated by human, social and natural capital can be incorporated into the instruments that measure the reputation of places. Acknowledgements I am immensely grateful to Prof. Dr. Joep P. Cornelissen for his guidance during my research, although any errors are my own and should not tarnish the reputation of this esteemed scholar.
References Anholt, S. 2010. Places, Identity, Image and Reputation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Battilana, J., M. Lee, C. Walker, and C. Dorsey. 2012. In Search of the Hybrid Ideal. Stanford Social Innovation Review 10: 51–55. Bourdieu, P. 1986. The Forms of Capital. In Handbook of Theory of Research for the Sociology of Education, ed. J.E. Richardson, 241–258, trans. R. Nice. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Bourdieu, P. 1998. Practical Reasons. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Bridoux, F., and J.W. Stoelhorst. 2016. Stakeholder Relationships and Social Welfare: A Behavioral Theory of Contributions to Joint Value Creation. Academy of Management Review 41 (2): 229–251. Castells, M. 2010/1996. The Rise of the Network Society, 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Coulson, A.B., C.A. Adams, M.N. Nugent, and K. Haynes. 2015. Exploring Metaphors of Capitals and the Framing of Multiple Capitals. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 6 (3): 290–314. Currid, E. 2007. The Warhol Economy: How Fashion Art and Music Drive New York City. New York: Princeton University Press. Donaldson, T., and J.P. Walsh. 2015. Toward a Theory of Business. Research in Organizational Behavior 35: 181–207. Florida, R. 2008. Who’s Your City? How the Creative Economy is Making Where to Live the Most Important Decision of Your Life. New York: Basic Books. Fombrun, C.J. 2012. The Building Blocks of Corporate Reputation. In The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Reputation, ed. M.L. Barnett and T.G. Pollock. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Freeman, R.E. 1984/2010. Strategic Management, A Stakeholder Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Friedman, M. 1970. The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. New York Times Magazine, September 13, 32–33. Gemeente Beverwijk. 2014. Vertrouwen in Mensen met de Blik op de Toekomst, viewed 16 May 2016. http://www.beverwijk.nl/ document.php?m=23&fileid=123709&f=7ec7191d116ecc f9a568804aacb5a4fe&attachment=0. Govers, R., and F. Go. 2009. Place Branding, Glocal, Virtual and Physical Identities, Constructed, Imagined and Experienced. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Gray, P., and D.F. Bjorklund. 2014. Psychology, 7th ed. New York: Worth Publishers. Hahn, C., B. Fley, M. Florian, D. Spresny, and K. Fischer. 2007. Social Reputation: A Mechanism for Flexible Self-Regulation of Multiagent Systems. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 10 (1): 2.
Harrison, J.S., D.A. Bosse, and R.A. Phillips. 2010. Managing for Stakeholders, Stakeholder Utility Functions, and Competitive Advantage. Strategic Management Journal 31 (1): 58–74. Jones, T.M., T. Donaldson, R.E. Freeman, J.S. Harrison, C.R. Leana, J.T. Mahoney, and J.L. Pearce. 2016. Introduction to Special Topic Forum Management Theory and Social Welfare Contributions and Challenges. Academy of Management Review 41 (2): 216–228. Keller, K.L. 1993. Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer Based Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing 57 (1): 1–22. Klamer, A. 2002. Accounting for Social and Cultural Values. De Economist 150 (4): 453–473. Klamer, A. 2003. A Pragmatic View on Values in Economics. Journal of Economic Methodology 10 (2): 191–212. Landry, C. 2008. The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators, 2nd ed. Stroud: COMEDIA. Moigneon, B., and B. Ramanantsoa. 1997. Understanding Corporate Identity: The French School of Thought. European Journal of Marketing 31 (5/6): 383–395. Piketty, T. 2014. Capital in the Twenty-First Century, trans. A. Goldhammer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Porter, M.E., and M.R. Kramer. 2006. Strategy & Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. Harvard Business Review 89 (1/2): 62–77. Porter, M.E., and M.R. Kramer. 2011. Creating Shared Value, How to Reinvent Capitalism—And Unleash a Wave of Innovation and Growth. Harvard Business Review 89 (1/2): 62–77. Pratt, A.C. 2011. The Cultural Contradictions of the Creative City. City, Culture and Society 2: 123–130. Reputation Institute. 2017. 2015 City RepTrak, the World’s Most Reputable Cities, viewed 31 October 2017. https://cdn2.hubspot. net/hubfs/2963875/library/City%20RepTrak%202017_f5.pdf. Rifkin, J. 2000. The Age of Access, the New Culture of Hupercapitalism, Where All of Life is a Paid-for Experience. New York: Tarcher Perigee. Schumacher, E.F. 1973/2010. Small is Beautiful, Economics as if People Mattered. New York: Harper Perennial. Siisia¨inen, M. 2000. Two Concepts of Social Capital: Bourdieu vs. Putnam. Paper presented at ISTR Fourth International Conference, July, Dublin, Ireland. Throsby, D. 1999. Cultural Capital. Journal of Cultural Economics 23 (1–2): 3–12. Throsby, D. 2003. Cultural Capital. In A Handbook of Cultural Economics, ed. R. Towse, 166–169. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. van Riel, C.B.M., and C.J. Fombrun. 2007. Essentials of Corporate Communication. London: Routledge.
Debora Vollebregt (1967) is passionate about art and music. She holds degrees in Music and Economics and studied the Executive MSc in Corporate Communication at Erasmus University, Rotterdam School of Management with Prof. dr Joep Cornelissen and Prof. dr Cees van Riel. Over 20 years she did theatre productions with the Max Tak Ochestra as a musician. Since 2003, she has been the managing director at Centrum voor de Kunsten Beverwijk, an arts education centre in Beverwijk. She believes it is her duty to support arts education to cross new frontiers, and to make a contribution to solutions for the issues which arts education and society at large are facing.
