Social Capital in Marketing and Its Implication to the Social Outcome

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2021, Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages: 59-64

J. Environ. Treat. Tech.

ISSN: 2309-1185

Journal web link: http://www.jett.dormaj.com

https://doi.org/10.47277/JETT/9(1)64

Social Capital in Marketing and Its Implication to

the Social Outcome

Zurul Aisya Osman , Nursyuhadah Abdul Rahman, Nur Syairah Ani

Universiti Kuala Lumpur Business School, Universiti Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Received: 18/08/2020

Accepted: 06/10/2020

Published: 10/10/2020

Abstract

Social capital refers to economic resource involving elements such as norms, trust and social network that facilitate society’s action.

From marketing perspective, social capital mediates the experience of the individual, organization and the entire society via enabling shared

values to spread through social connections, hence generating social outcome. Nonetheless, conceptualization of social capital within

marketing paradigm has been inadequate despite some empirical works. Consequently, elements of norms, trust and social network which

signify long term establishment of a business, has often been neglected. In this study, analyses are performed on existing scholarly published

papers to gauge the conceptual and empirical findings from existing studies pertaining social capital in marketing as well as its implication

towards the society’s outcome. In this regards, we identify the contributions of social capital which mediates the relationship between

marketing strategies and its performance. Subsequently, we characterize how social capital in marketing affects the social outcome in the

contemporary world. The study proposes that social capital is a useful and appropriate resource to enhance marketing performance that would

engender benefits at the societal level. However, social capital could also hinder the performance should it is not being properly acknowledged

and assessed. Ultimately, the study will stimulate more efforts to emphasize on social capital among marketers and the community as a means

to further enhance the desired social outcome. Additionally, this study will also serve as guidance for future researchers to extend the finding

into more profound studies in the area of social capital in marketing.

Keywords: Social capital, marketing, social outcome

wrong decisions (Prusak & Cohen, 2001). Meanwhile, the

Introduction

contemporary reviews are mostly restricted to presenting

comprehensive literature survey covering numerous definitions

and measurement approaches for social capital, with lack of

attempt to specify the analysis within marketing environment. As

such, relevant indicators and analysis on social capital in

marketing, especially pertaining conceptualization of the double-

edge mediating roles it has, is yet to be extensively studied.

Therefore, this paper seeks to address the above-mentioned

issues, specifically with regards to the contradictory yet

instrumental roles that social capital has to influence marketing

behaviour and actions, which consequently create a certain

outcome at societal level. It is worth mentioning that this paper

does not in fact discuss social marketing but rather assess social

capital as an instrument in contemporary marketing practices. The

main departure is that, while social marketing focuses on

influencing the marketers and consumers towards positive

behaviour and actions (Kotler & Levy, 1969), social capital have

the possibility of creating contradictory outcomes, in which at one

point the implication could become the means of wellbeing, yet in

another circumstances bring adverse implication to the

Social capital refers to the value of relationships (Coleman

988; Baker 1990) which enable an organization or an institution

to work effectively. Recently, social capital has been used to

explain the performances within diverse key economic areas such

as entrepreneurship (Kim & Aldrich, 2005; Stam & Elfring, 2008)

organizational management (Moran, 2005; Li et. al, 2014) and

supply chain resilience (Johnson et. al., 2013; Gölgeci &

Kuivalainen, 2020). From the macro perspective, social capital has

received critical attentions with regards to its important roles in

economic growth (Dinda, 2002) and socioeconomic development

(

Han et. al., 2014). Nonetheless, the significance of social capital

in explaining marketing effectiveness are still lacking.

According to Pratono & Pudjibudojo (2016), social capital

serves as complementary mediator which supports marketing

capability consequently enhance an organization’s performances.

While the term social capital existed for quite some time, the role

it plays in influencing marketing capability and performance still

has not been appropriately examined. On the other hand, social

capital has not always been a good mediator since there is a

tendency for excessive amount of it which could lead towards

Corresponding author: Zurul Aisya Osman, Universiti Kuala Lumpur Business School, Universiti Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. E-mail:

zurulaisya@unikl.edu.my

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2021, Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages: 59-64

marketplace and the society.

races, religions, cultures, positions or any other

sociodemographic or socioeconomic characteristics (Putnam,

995; Woolcock, 1998). This type of social capital emerges

Literature Review

from weak social ties across society and much more open to

relations. Van Staveren & Knorringa (2007) asserts that

bridging capital enables the economic transactions between

strangers and help reduce the inevitable costs of uncertainty.

However, bridging capital heavily relies on generalized trust

among loosely connected people, hence it establishes only a

minimum level of trustworthiness that needs to be

occasionally assessed through looking at updated reputation

of the members as well as ongoing involvement in the

relationship. Consequently, bridging social capital have the

tendency to be destroyed during crisis and the possibility for

this is perhaps higher than the bonding capital.

Hence, social capital is an important factor in the social

dynamics of decision‐making (Stevenson & Radin, 2009).

Indeed, social capital is a multidimensional occurrence which

involved interpersonal relationship within and between

organizations or networks that are complex to measure.

Indeed, theory of social capital suggests that norms, trust and

social networks are the valuable inherent resources which

mediate better accessibility towards the tangible economic

resources, consequently facilitate in achieving desired

outcomes (Bandari and Yasunobu, 2009). Nonetheless, the

excessive or improperly managed amount of social capital

may lead to adverse implication and hence attention. Table 1

below shows the summary descriptions of social capital from

its vast literatures.

.1 Social Capital

Social capital is a resource with economic and moral

values. Generally accepted as a goodwill (Adler and Kwon,

002) and inherent in the social structures, social capital is

derived through social connections (Nahapiet & Ghoshal,

998; Villalonga-Olives & Kawachi, 2017) and anchors on

the non-material and intangible resources engendered through

shared and cooperative occurrence in relationships among

individual and social units (Coleman, 1988). In fact, social

capital is mutually owned by both parties in the relationship,

the important characteristic which make it distinctive from

other types of capitals (Burt, 2000). More importantly, social

capital plays the role in influencing people’s behaviour and

actions subsequently foster their performance.

Essentially, Bourdieu (1986) categorized three (3)

dimensions of capital which is economic, culture and social.

Within the social dimension, trust has become the influential

tool to overcome conflicts of power function and to gain

designated outcome from an exchange. On the other hand,

Coleman (1988) examined three (3) elements which forms the

social capital, namely obligations and expectations,

informational channels and shared social norms. While

people normally feel obligated to the relationship that they

built, they will also have certain expectation from the

relationship. In addition, an expectation which is also the

desired outcome is more impactful when there is appropriate

channel for information as well as norms which is shared

unequivocally by the network.

Meanwhile, Putnam (1995) has characterized social

capital into three (3) components which is norms, trust and

social networks. While norms are associated with moral

obligations, trust is a social value which is reciprocal, hence

it refers to mutual trust. On the other hand, social networks

entail association between people in their respective kind of

relationship. Furthermore, Putnam (1995) has also

contextualized social capital into two (2) distinctive types,

namely bonding capital and bridging capital. The former

emerges from strong social ties between family members,

neighbours, friends, or within the same religious or cultural

circle. In this regard, bonding capital could easily generate a

particular type of trust and norms as adhered between the

members within their network, while non-members may face

high barriers in relationship. Nonetheless, Cleaver (2005)

cautions on the drawback of bonding social capital as it could

be highly negotiated or challenged. Although social capital

enhances the exchange performance and reduced inter-

organizational conflict, improperly managed social capital

which could easily derived from bonding type of social

capital may lead to mismanagement, wrong direction of

decision, consequently long term destruction towards the

relationship. In the context of this paper, Putnam’s

conceptualization which involved the distinctive two (2)

types of social capital and its fundamental three (3) elements

as shown in Table 2 and Diagram 1 respectively shall be used

for further analysis.

Figure 1: Putnam’s (1995) Three Basic Social Capital Elements

Source: Häuberer (2011).

.2 Social capital in marketing and its relevance in the society’s

outcome

Marketing is a social as well as managerial process in which

the objective is to facilitate exchange of product information and

acceptance between the marketer and consumer. According to

Kotler & Armstrong (2013), marketing enable individuals or

groups to obtain what they desire by creating, offering and

exchanging products of value with other parties. Meanwhile, social

capital elements such as norms, trust and network (Putnam, 1995)

plays significant role to mediate the exchange. The conception of

social capital as a resource indicates that it is meant for enabling

something greater in the values desired and hence should be

promoted within rational and positive paradigm.

On the other hand, bridging social capital involved

diverse social groups and classes such as between different

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2021, Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages: 59-64

Table 1: Summary Descriptions of Social Capital

Descriptions

reciprocity tying up the marketers or the brands with the customer,

hence leading to not only loyalty, but also satisfaction and

happiness upon consumption. While the satisfaction and happiness

are mainly the objective for consumer side of the society, the

consumer loyalty part is presumably enjoyed more by the business

side, if not equal, to how much the consumer would enjoy.

With regards to Putnam’s (1995) distinction between bonding

capital and bridging capital, the bonding capital occurs when the

marketers have a strong tie with the customers which makes it

convenient for them to socialize and achieve an outcome such as

ability for the marketers to gain the customers attention and

acceptance. On the other hand, the bridging capital in which

involves marketers’ relationship with customers who does not

really know each other very well. The social capital generated

through weak ties within the association between both sides of the

party could engender a mutual trust consequently desired benefits.

In both of the cases i.e. bonding and bridging social capital, both

parties doesn’t have the same objective, since the marketer’s

priority has always been to get their brand known and their

products consumed, while from the customers’ side, they look for

satisfaction and price-worthy products, along with an esteemed

brand.

On the other hand, contemporary yet complex society with

highly connected global marketplace necessitates resilience

(Johnson et. al., 2013; Gölgeci & Kuivalainen, 2020) for a business

to sustain. In this regard, and the ability to endure and adjust to the

complex scenario requires more than just quantitative monetary

measures. Hence, the marketing strategy looks beyond building a

network of relations which will engender social capital for the

brand, as well as on the long term outcome desirable not only to

the specific individual but also the society. Nonetheless, little is

known on the appropriate mechanism to derive and apply social

capital into the relationship between marketers and customers.

Coleman, (1988) views that social capital is the special tool for

mechanism of social enforcement, in which from marketing point

of view, it links marketing behaviours and actions embedded with

social enforcement such as built commitment between the

marketers and the customers. In this context, social capital

provides the explanatory power to the marketing performance.

Ideally, social capital refers to connections and relationship

that businesses have with the individuals outside of its firm

Authors

Bourdieu

Social capital is made up of social obligations

through connections which is convertible and

can be institutionalized.

(

1986)

Burt

1997)

Social capital involved friends, colleagues, and

general contacts through whom you receive

brokerage opportunities in the network.

Social capital consist of some aspect of social

structure, and they facilitate certain actions of

individuals who are within the structure.

Social capital is a certain set of informal values

or norms shared among members of a group

that permit cooperation among them.

Social capital involved a culture of trust and

tolerance, in which extensive networks of

voluntary associations emerge.

(

Coleman

1990)

(

Fukuyama

1997)

(

Inglehart

1997)

(

Nahapiet &

Ghoshal

Social capital is the sum of the actual and

potential resources in the network of

relationships possessed by an individual or

social unit.

(

1998)

Putnam

1995)

Social capital features includes networks,

norms and social trust that facilitate

coordination and cooperation for mutual

benefit.

Social capital refers to the information, trust,

and norms of reciprocity inherent in one’s

social networks.

(

Woolcock

(

1998)

Source: Adopted from Adler and Kwon (2002)

Table 2: Bonding Capital vs. Bridging Capital

Bonding Capital

Created as a result of

strong social ties

Pre-existence of

relationship which

the social capital

easily created and

utilized since the

members shares

common

Bridging Capital

Created as a result

of weak social ties

Linking the members

from diverse

background to works

together regardless of

differences, hence

facilitate exchange

between strangers

Definition

Advantage

(

Pennings, Lee & vanWitteloostuijin, 1998, in which both main

objectives may be different but must be reciprocal. Indeed, it is

remarkable that marketing is one of the contemporary occurrence

for social capital inclusion. In this regard, social capital is viewed

as intangible assets for brands which are created via associations

between marketers and customers. In addition, social capital

facilitates the behaviours and actions of both the marketers and

consumers to achieve sustainable marketing and society’s

desirable outcome respectively. The societal outcome refers to the

quality of life i.e. the risk and benefits distributed across the

society. It is also referred as something desirable or not desirable

in the society. By convention, the desired societal outcome means

to achieve favourable situation such as being healthy, safe, well-

informed, comfortable, capable as well as having job and freedom

of choice (Diener & Suh, 1997). On the other hand, the unintended

outcome could be anxiety, hostility, bankruptcy, depression or

increase in number of crimes. Within marketing perspective, it is

the society’s favourable outcome to be well-informed of the

product they are consuming, have freedom of choice and capable

characteristic

Disadvantage High barriers to non-

members, and for the

member, it may lead

to excessive and

Involved minimal level

of trust and norms in a

newly made-up

networks hence the

social capital is fragile

during crisis

unregulated amount

of social capital

which could produce

society’s undesirable

decisions

Source: Authors’ compilation and evaluation based on literature findings

For example, a consumer chooses a product through knowing

the information of the product or its brand. Subsequently, should

the consumer acquire favourable experience i.e. feeling upon

consumption match the expectation imbued by marketing

strategies prior to the consumption, it will engender more trust and

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2021, Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages: 59-64

to evaluate their own means of purchase, and vice versa are the

undesirable ones.

particular product to be further acknowledged and accepted.

As such, as illustrated in Figure 2, there is indeed a mediating

role of social capital in leading marketing towards enhancement of

society’s outcome. This is due to the fact that social capital

explains the reason for the relationship between marketer and

consumer in generating the observed result. While social capital

refers to be valuable resource, which can contribute to both private

and public entity, it contains both positive and negative influence

which is either promoting or hindering the marketing performance,

consequently the desired outcome.

. Methodology and Data Sources

The study is evaluative in nature and conducted via desk

research approach which involve collecting information from

existing secondary resources obtained via books, journals,

development reports, discussion papers, conference papers and

articles. The resources were selected based on its relevancy to the

main keywords which is social capital, marketing and social

outcome. Within the selected resources, identification using the

content analysis method were made pertaining the contribution of

social capital as mediating resources to influence marketing

performance. In addition, the identification of how the influence of

social capital in marketing affect the social outcome were also

reviewed, which finally leads to the study’s result and conclusion.

. Critical Analysis on Social Capital in Marketing

.1 Social capital as mediator in marketing implementations

It is without a doubt that the relationship between social capital

Figure 2: The mediating role of social capital in marketing

Source: Authors’ evaluation based on literature findings.

and marketing performance has not been adequately examined.

Although there are scholars who have attempted to prove the

significant effect of social capital in marketing, most of them failed

to provide consistent result to show the clear direction of

relationship between social capital and marketing behaviour.

Nonetheless there are small number yet still significant finding

which conclude the existence of positive relationship between

social capital and marketing. For instance, Sholekhah et. al. (2020)

asserts that social capital directly affects marketing performance

although does not directly affect marketing strategy. Additionally,

Felzensztein et. al. (2014) implied that social capital should be

built as the new predictors of collaboration in strategic marketing

activities, since it has a significant effect on marketing

performance.

4.2 Social capital in promoting the marketing performance

The social capital theory suggests that various kinds of

relationships enable the associated members to gain access into

various kinds of resources that accrue to them (Gabbay & Leenders

1999). The amount of trust and norms of reciprocity determines

how much both sides shall mutually benefit from the engagement.

From the marketer’s standpoint, it creates loyalty and good

branding for sustainability of business. Meanwhile, from the

consumer’s side, social capital enhances their perceived value and

satisfaction. This eventually create

a consumer-generated

marketing in which the brand exchanges engendered by consumers

themselves as the shape their own brand experiences and those of

other consumers (Kotler, 2012; Kotler & Armstrong, 2013).

In fact, the most important aspect of social capital is the role

of trust in gluing the network together, as high levels of social

capital is closely aligned with the ability of business (Batt, 2008).

Trust in a brand is positively related to brand loyalty hence

building the social capital of a brand in a network is an investment

to the brand loyalty. For example, when there is a trust between the

marketer and the consumer, the society’s gain as a whole can be

generated in terms of satisfaction and freedom to choose. Similar

outcome does occur from the side of the firms. When the social

capital mediates a purchase that is desirable, the marketer

consequently do well not only in short term but also for sustainable

marketing strategy. This will promote positive marketing outcome

which is desirable to the society such as accuracy of information

and product detail, freedom of choice and volunteered loyalty.

Therefore, confidence is created when there is consistent and

dependable behaviour that strengthen mutual trust between the

marketers and customers which will be further amplified and

extended.

Indeed, both strong and weak ties in a relationship are the

ingredients of social capital. Whereas the strong ties provide

unique capabilities and social interconnection such as strong sense

of belonging and deep connectedness within the network, the weak

ties provide access to novel ideas and a diverse set of resources

(

Jackson & Young, 2016). In this regard, the strong ties, which are

also the pre-requisite for bonding social capital (Putnam, 1995;

Woolcock, 1998) provides marketers who have the existing

connection with the consumer, some guarantee that the product

will be acknowledged and accepted. On the other hand, the weak

ties which instigate the bridging social capital (Putnam, 1995;

Woolcock, 1998), provides marketers with opportunities to widen

the background of the customers, hence wider acknowledgement

and acceptance towards the marketed products.

Within contemporary marketing environment, social

networking services (SNSs) have been an important platform to

generate social capital. In this regard, the SNSs can also provide

firms and marketers with an immense range of opportunities for

extending and preserving relations they have with customers using

various technologies and marketing tools which is more cost

efficient and effective. Therefore, social capital is created when

marketers integrate online interactions with consumers in their

marketing communication mix, as this actively influence offline

interactions and consumer behaviour (Wellman et al., 2001). For

example, techniques such as buzz marketing (Kotler, 2012; Kotler

Meanwhile, the social ties in the network of relationships

potentially provide access to diverse knowledge and perspective as

well as increase speed of exchange (Burt, 1997), hence influencing

the effectiveness of exchange combination activities (Nahapiet &

Ghosal, 1998; Tsai & Ghosal, 1998). In this regard, social capital

improves the marketing performance via enhancing the brand

equity and brand positioning in the mind of the consumer. It will

Armstrong, 2013) is effective to maximize the potential of a

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2021, Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages: 59-64

lead to sustainable marketing which is not only desirable but also

beneficial to the society. In addition, a well-functioning system

will have high integration which subsequently able to lead towards

further successful accumulation of social capital between the

marketers and the customers. Ultimately, higher social capital will

improve social factors, enhance the word-of-mouth influence of

friends and other consumers which can have a positive impact on

the society as a whole.

. Research Challenge and Future Direction

The expansion of marketing into digital world provide both

challenges and future direction in building appropriate social

capital in marketing. New technologies have paved the way for

more effective two-way customer relationships, where consumers

have more power and control. In the contemporary world,

marketing strategies has been increasingly focused on the SNSs to

expose brands to consumers via interactive communications

(

Nielsen, 2012; Serdaris, 2014). Hence, digital social capital has to

.3 Social capital in hindering the marketing performance

Social capital does not always provide positive implication to

be applicably assessed particularly when handling various

comments and reviews from the existing consumers which leads

towards creation of norms and trust in the network of involving

new and prospective consumers who will develop more social

capital when they read the comments and reviews.

the marketing performance. In fact, social capital which is not used

wisely may produce negative consequences for economic actors

(

Hazleton, & Kennan, 2000). A marketing performance not only

look at whether the products were acknowledged and accepted by

the consumer, but also the consumers' points of view as this will

be the antecedents for sustainable marketing. For example, social

capital, especially the bridging capital, facilitate marketing

performance when strangers able to exchange information and

product. However, bridging capital may suffer some destructive

relationship since it is build based on weak ties. In this regard,

should there be any disruption such as negative reviews on the

product, consumer may easily change their chosen brand.

Besides new technologies which needs to be properly

managed, a proper set of multidimensional indicators to measure

and assess social capital should be ascertained. This includes social

capital within the relationship at interpersonal or system level,

formal or informal, specific location or collaborations, as well as

within different marketing methods and practice, to name a few. In

addition, the measurement indicators should consider the strength

and direction of the implication from social capital towards the

society’s desired outcome.

However, the case of disruption may create negative outcome

in different way for bonding capital. For example, consumer may

still maintain the volumes of orders with a supplier at a reasonably

low level of risk, as they had already developed a certain degree of

trust within their association. This especially damaging for

bonding capital due to unnecessary over commitment. Similarly,

when there is too much social capital that hinders the marketing

capability, it will be detrimental to the choice, for example, when

there is bonding capital, the consumers feel like they need to accept

the product due to personal commitment in the relationship such

as helping their own kin’s business or doing favour for those whom

they knew for long time. This adversely affect the social outcome

in such a way that the consumer did not ‘freely’ chosen their brand

of product and hence low satisfaction or any other undesirable

outcome may have occurred. From the side of marketers, too much

social capital especially bonding capital in marketing will also

make the marketer not being careful to limit the information as not

to disclose the information to the competitors through the

prospective consumers.

Correspondingly, social capital that hinders the marketing

capability since it is also laden with liabilities rooted from over-

commitment may lead to negative consequences to the relationship

and the society as a whole. Pillai et. al. (2017) enumerates that

when relationship was not adequately dealt with, it will trigger

over-commitment to the established relationship, inhibiting logical

and reasonable thinking while engendering unreasonable

escalation of engagement, as well as blurring of boundaries

especially between marketer and customers. The dependency, and

over commitment can sometimes amplify the vulnerability of the

relationship between marketers and the customers. Firms engaging

in intensive relationships and building strong social capital can

face opportunity costs and consequences are influenced by both

complexity of interaction. Therefore, it is imperative that the

potential negative consequences of social capital are alleviated or

transformed into positive force through mutually responsible

actions to control the impact of the so-called over commitment.

. Conclusion

Social capital has its costs as well as benefits, due to the fact

that it is engendered from social ties which can be a liability as

well as an asset (Woolcock, 1998). Specifically, although social

capital appears to have positive or negative consequences in

marketing performance, yet little is known about how much social

capital is promoting or hindering the performance. Nonetheless,

social capital still is a game changer in marketing strategies for the

current and the next generation. As such, it is imperative in

building sustainable solutions for business and society. In fact,

although there are conceptual and some empirical papers focusing

on very specific indicators such as marketing to address social

capital elements, still a lot more efforts needed to ascertain the

literature and application of social capital especially in marketing

practices and effectiveness.

Based on this study, we establish that social capital provides

useful and appropriate element to complement and strengthen the

traditional concepts of marketing as to further enhance the societal

outcomes. However, it is crucial that social capital elements of

norms, trust and network are properly managed in order to assume

the role as an effective instrument for marketing strategy. As the

social capital is acknowledged and properly managed, it shall

influence the marketing performance and consequently engender

desirable societal outcome.

Acknowledgment

Thank you to UniKL Business School for the opportunity, as

well as all the reviewers involved, who anonymously review this

article.

Ethical issue

Authors are aware of, and comply with, best practice in

publication ethics specifically with regard to authorship

(avoidance of guest authorship), dual submission, and

manipulation of figures, competing interests and compliance with

policies on research ethics. Authors adhere to publication

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2021, Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages: 59-64

requirements that submitted work is original and has not been

published elsewhere in any language.

18. Kim, P. H.,

Aldrich, H. E. (2005). Social capital and

entrepreneurship. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship,

(2), 55-104.

9. Kotler, P. (2012). Kotler on marketing. Simon and Schuster.

0. Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2013). Principles of Marketing (16th

Global Edition).

Competing interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest that

would prejudice the impartiality of this scientific work.

21. Kwon, S. W., & Adler, P. S. (2014). Social capital: Maturation of a

field of research. Academy of management review, 39(4), 412-422.

2. Li, Y., Chen, H., Liu, Y., & Peng, M. W. (2014). Managerial ties,

organizational learning, and opportunity capture: A social capital

perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31(1), 271-291.

3. Moran, P. (2005). Structural vs. relational embeddedness: Social

capital and managerial performance. Strategic management journal,

Authors’ contribution

All authors of this study have a complete contribution for data

collection, data analyses and manuscript writing.

6(12), 1129-1151

4. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital,

and the organizational advantage. Academy of management review,

23(2), 242-266.

References

Adler, P.S. and Kwon, S.W. (2002). Social capital: prospects for a

new concept, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 27, No. 1,

pp.17–40.

25. Pennings, J. M., Lee, K., & Witteloostuijn, A. V. (1998). Human

capital, social capital, and firm dissolution. Academy of management

Journal, 41(4), 425-440.

26. Perez, C., Sokolova, K., & Konate, M. (2020). Digital social capital

and performance of initial coin offerings. Technological Forecasting

and Social Change, 152, 119888.

27. Pillai, K. G., Hodgkinson, G. P., Kalyanaram, G., & Nair, S. R.

(2017). The negative effects of social capital in organizations: A

review and extension. International Journal of Management Reviews,

19(1), 97-124.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1986). The forms of capital. In: John G. Richardson

(

ed.): Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of

Education. New York: Greenwood Press, 241-258.Burt, Ronald S.

1997). A Note on Social Capital and Network Content. Social

(

Networks, Vol. 19, pp. 355-373.

Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research

in organizational behavior, 22, 345-423.

Cleaver, F. (2005). The inequality of social capital and the

reproduction of chronic poverty. World development, 33(6), 893-

28. Pratono, A. H.,

& Pudjibudojo, J. K. (2016). Transforming

06.

entrepreneurial resources to competitive advantage: the role of social

capital and marketing capability. Mediterranean Journal of Social

Sciences, 7(2 S1), 265-265.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital.

American journal of sociology, 94, S95-S120.

Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1997). Measuring quality of life: Economic,

social, and subjective indicators. Social indicators research, 40(1-2),

29. Prusak, L., & Cohen, D. (2001). How to invest in social capital.

Harvard business review, 79(6), 86-97.

89-216.

30. Putnam, Robert D., (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining

social capital. Journal of Democracy Vol. 6 (1995) 1, 64-78.

31. Sholekhah, I. M., Widodo, J., & Wahyono, W. (2020). The Effect of

Social Capital and Learning Organization on Marketing Performance

Through the Marketing Strategy. Journal of Economic Education,

9(1), 40-47.

32. Siisiainen, M. (2003). Two concepts of social capital: Bourdieu vs.

Putnam. International Journal of Contemporary Sociology, 40(2),

183-204.

33. Stam, W., & Elfring, T. (2008). Entrepreneurial orientation and new

venture performance: The moderating role of intra-and extraindustry

social capital. Academy of management journal, 51(1), 97-111.

34. Stevenson, W. B., & Radin, R. F. (2009). Social capital and social

influence on the board of directors. Journal of Management Studies,

46(1), 16-44.

35. Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The

role of intrafirm networks. Academy of management Journal, 41(4),

464-476.

36. Van Staveren, I., & Knorringa, P. (2007). Unpacking social capital in

economic development: How social relations matter. Review of

social economy, 65(1), 107-135.

37. Villalonga-Olives, E., & Kawachi, I. (2017). The dark side of social

capital: A systematic review of the negative health effects of social

capital. Social Science & Medicine, 194, 105-127.

38. Wellman, B., Haase, A.Q., Witte, J. and Hampton, K. (2001) ‘Does

the Internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital? Social

networks, participation, and community commitment’, American

Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 45, No. 3, pp.436–455.

39. Woolcock, M. (1998). Social capital and economic development:

Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and

society, 27(2), 151-208.

Dinda, S. (2008). Social capital in the creation of human capital and

economic growth: A productive consumption approach. The Journal

of Socio-Economics, 37(5), 2020-2033.

Felzensztein, C., Brodt, S. E., & Gimmon, E. (2014). Do strategic

marketing and social capital really matter in regional clusters?

Lessons from an emerging economy of Latin America. Journal of

Business Research, 67(4), 498-507.

Gabbay, S.M. & R.T.A.J. Leenders (1999). CSC: The Structure of

Advantage and Disadvantage. In: R. T. A. J. Leenders & S. M.

Gabbay (Eds.). Corporate Social Capital and Liability. Norwell, MA:

Kluwer Academic Publishers. 1-14.

0. Gölgeci, I., & Kuivalainen, O. (2020). Does social capital matter for

supply chain resilience? The role of absorptive capacity and

marketing-supply chain management alignment. Industrial

Marketing Management, 84, 63-74.)

1. Han, J., Chu, X., Song, H., & Li, Y. (2014). Social capital,

socioeconomic status and self-efficacy. Applied Economics and

Finance, 2(1), 1-10.

2. Hazleton, V.,

Kennan, W. (2000). Social capital:

Reconceptualising the bottom line. Corporate Communications: An

International Journal.

3. Häuberer, J. (2011). The Founding Concepts of Social Capital-

Bourdieu’s Theory of Capital and Coleman's Rational-Choice

Approach to Social Capital. In Social Capital Theory (pp. 35-51). VS

Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

4. Jackson, L., & Young, L. (2016). When business networks “kill”

social networks: A case study in Bangladesh. Industrial Marketing

Management, 58, 148–161.

5. Jackson, M. O. (2019). A typology of social capital and associated

network measures. Social Choice and Welfare, 1-26.

6. Johnson, N., Elliott, D., & Drake, P. (2013). Exploring the role of

social capital in facilitating supply chain resilience. Supply Chain

Management: An International Journal.

7. Kotler, P., & Levy, S. J. (1969). Broadening the concept of

marketing. Journal of marketing, 33(1), 10-15