Menu Expand



Haase, MBecker, I (2020). Resource-Making and Proto-Institutions in the German Tafel Field: Applying a Hermeneutical Context Model. Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, 140(1), 31-64.
Haase, Michaela Becker, IngridHaase, Michaela Becker, Ingrid (2020). "Resource-Making and Proto-Institutions in the German Tafel Field: Applying a Hermeneutical Context Model" Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, vol. 140no. 1, 2020 pp. 31-64.
Haase, MBecker, I (2020). Resource-Making and Proto-Institutions in the German Tafel Field: Applying a Hermeneutical Context Model. Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, Vol. 140 (Issue 1), pp 31-64.


Resource-Making and Proto-Institutions in the German Tafel Field: Applying a Hermeneutical Context Model

Haase, Michaela | Becker, Ingrid

Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, Vol. 140 (2020), Iss. 1 : pp. 31–64

Additional Information

Article Details


Author Details

Michaela Haase, Marketing-Department, Freie Universität Berlin, Arminallee 11, 14195 Berlin, Germany.

Ingrid Becker, Institute for Business Ethics, University of St. Gallen, Girtannerstrasse 8, 9010 St.Gallen, Switzerland; and Institute of Economics, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Kochstr. 4/17, 91054 Erlangen.


  1. Anthony, T. 2017. “Armut in Deutschland: Erst die Arbeit, dann die Tafel.” Accessed February 17, 2018.  Google Scholar
  2. ARD Mediathek. 2018. “Reste für die Armen.” Accessed July 17, 2019.  Google Scholar
  3. Askegaard, S. and J. T. Linnet. 2011. “Toward an Epistemology of Consumer Culture Theory: Phenomenology and the Context of Context.” Marketing Theory 11 (4): 381 – 404.  Google Scholar
  4. Bayerischer Rundfunk. 2018. “Wachsende Ungleichheit – Arm im reichen Bayern.” Accessed July 17, 2019.,QgFRYDp.  Google Scholar
  5. Bechetti, L. and C. Borzaga. 2010. The Economics of Social Responsibility: The World of Social Enterprises. New York: Routledge.  Google Scholar
  6. Binmore, K. 2007. Game Theory: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Google Scholar
  7. Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.  Google Scholar
  8. Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  Google Scholar
  9. Bourdieu, P. (1984) 1988. Homo Academicus. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.  Google Scholar
  10. Bourdieu, P. (1989) 1996. The State Nobility. Elite Schools in the Field of Power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.  Google Scholar
  11. Bourdieu, P. (2000) 2005. The Social Structures of the Economy. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.  Google Scholar
  12. Burawoy, M. 1998. “The Extended Case Method.” Sociological Theory 16 (1): 4 – 33.  Google Scholar
  13. Burawoy, M. 2009. The Extended Case Method: Four Countries, Four Decades, Four Great Transformations, and One Theoretical Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press.  Google Scholar
  14. Chandler, J. D. and S. L. Vargo. 2011. “Contextualization and Value-in-Context: How Context Frames Exchange.” Marketing Theory 11 (1): 35 – 49.  Google Scholar
  15. Clarke, A. E. 2010. “Situational Analysis.” In Encyclopedia of Case Study Research, Vol. 1, edited by A. J. Mills, G. Eurepos, and E. Wiebe, 870 – 4. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.  Google Scholar
  16. Deephouse, D. L., J. Bundy, L. P. Tost, and M. C. Suchman. 2017. “Organizational Legitimacy: Six Key Questions.” In The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, edited by R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, and R. E. Meyer, 27 – 54. London: SAGE Publications.  Google Scholar
  17. Derkas, E. 2015. “Cultural Identity and Food.” In The Sage Encyclopedia of Food Issues, edited by K. Albala, 330 – 4. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.  Google Scholar
  18. Deutsche Welle. 2018. “Families and Kids First, German Food Bank Tafel Says.” Accessed July 17, 2019.  Google Scholar
  19. Deutsches Kinderhilfswerk e.V. 2018. “Kinderreport Deutschland 2018 – Rechte von Kindern in Deutschland.” Accessed July 17, 2019.  Google Scholar
  20. Die Welt. 2018. “Der Streit über die Tafel in Essen zeigt, wie sehr das Deutsche Sozialsystem unter Stress geraten ist – auch Anderswo.” Die Welt Berlin, March 3.  Google Scholar
  21. Domegan, C., M. Haase, K. Harris, W.-J. van den Heuvel, C. Kelleher, P. P. Maglio, T. Meynhardt, A. Ordanini, and L. Penãloza. 2012. “Value, Values, Symbols and Outcomes.” Marketing Theory 12 (2): 207 – 11.  Google Scholar
  22. Dufays, F. and B. Huybrechts. 2014. “Connecting the Dots for Social Value: A Review on Social Networks and Social Entrepreneurship.” Journal of Social Entrepreneurship 5 (2): 214 – 37.  Google Scholar
  23. Edvardsson, B., B. Tronvoll, and T. Gruber. 2011. “Explaining Understanding of Service Exchange and Value Co-Creation.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 39 (2): 327 – 39.  Google Scholar
  24. Findsrud, R., B. Tronvoll, and B. Edvardsson. 2018. “Motivation: The Missing Driver for Theorizing about Resource Integration.” Marketing Theory 18 (4): 493 – 519.  Google Scholar
  25. Fligstein, N. and L. Dauter. 2007. “The Sociology of Markets.” Annual Review of Sociology 33: 105 – 28.  Google Scholar
  26. Galbraith, J. K. (1958) 1998. The Affluent Society. 40th Anniversary Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.  Google Scholar
  27. Greer, C. R., R. F. Lusch, and S. L. Vargo. 2016. “A Service Perspective: Key Managerial Insights from Service-Dominant (S-D) Logic.” Organizational Dynamics 45 (1): 28 – 38.  Google Scholar
  28. Grohs, S., K. Schneiders, and R. G. Heinze. 2017. “Outsiders and Intrapreneurs: The Institutional Embeddedness of Social Entrepreneurship in Germany.” Voluntas 28 (6): 2569 – 91.  Google Scholar
  29. Haase, M. 2015. “Values-Based Value Creation and Responsibility: On the Relationship of ‘Doing Business’ and ‘Doing CSR’.” Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik (zfwu) 16 (3): 339 – 68.  Google Scholar
  30. Haase, M., I. Becker, and D. Pick. 2018. “Alternative Economies as Marketing Systems? The Role of Value Creation and the Criticism of Economic Growth.” Journal of Macromarketing 38 (1): 57 – 72.  Google Scholar
  31. Hannan, M. T. and J. Freeman. 1977. “The Population Ecology of Organizations.” American Journal of Sociology 82 (5): 929 – 64.  Google Scholar
  32. Hausel, C. 2017. “Vom Willkommen zum Ankommen: ‘HeimatTafel‘ fördert ehrenamtliche Integrationsprojekte.” motz. Berliner Straßenmagazin, January 4.  Google Scholar
  33. Hildebrandt, A. 2013. “Armenspeisung: Schluss mit den Tafeln!” Accessed July 17, 2019.  Google Scholar
  34. Howell, K. E. 2013. “Constructivist and Participatory Paradigms of Inquiry: Introducing Action Research.” In An Introduction to the Philosophy of Methodology, edited by K. E. Howell, 88 – 100. London: SAGE.  Google Scholar
  35. Jackson, G., M. Helfen, R. Kaplan, A. Kirsch, and N. Lohmeyer. 2019. “The Problem of De-Contextualization in Organization and Management Research.” In The Production of Managerial Knowledge and Organizational Theory: New Approaches to Writing, Producing and Consuming Theory. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 59, edited by T. B. Zilber, J. M. Amis, and J. Mair, 21 – 42. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.  Google Scholar
  36. Karababa, E. and H. Kjeldgaard. 2014. “Value in Marketing: Toward Socio-Cultural Perspectives.” Marketing Theory 14 (1): 119 – 27.  Google Scholar
  37. Kibler, E., V. Salmivaara, P. Stenholm, and S. Terjesen. 2018. “The Evaluative Legitimacy of Social Entrepreneurship in Capitalist Welfare Systems.” Journal of World Business 53 (6): 944 – 57.  Google Scholar
  38. Kleinaltenkamp, M., Brodie, R. J., Frow, P., Hughes, T., Peters, L. D., and Woratschek, H. 2012. “Resource Integration.” Marketing Theory 12 (2): 201 – 205.  Google Scholar
  39. Kleinaltenkamp, M., D. Corsaro, and R. Sebastini. 2018. “The Role of Proto-Institutions within the Change of Service-Systems.” Journal of Service Theory and Practice 28 (5): 609 – 35.  Google Scholar
  40. Kokko, S. 2018. “Social Entrepreneurship: Creating Social Value when Bridging Holes.” Social Enterprise Journal 14 (4): 410 – 28.  Google Scholar
  41. Landeshauptstadt München. 2017. “Münchner Armutsbericht 2017.” Accessed June 4, 2020.  Google Scholar
  42. Larsen, H. P. 2018. “Making Things Valuable.” Consumption Markets & Culture 21 (1): 103 – 6.  Google Scholar
  43. Lawrence, T. B., C. Hardy, and N. Phillips. 2002. “Institutional Effects of Interorganizational Analysis: The Emergence of Proto-Institutions.” The Academy of Management Journal 45 (1): 281 – 90.  Google Scholar
  44. Lawrence, T. B. and R. Suddaby. 2006. “Institutions and Institutional Work.” In The Sage Handbook of Organization Studies, edited by S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, and T. B. Lawrence, 215 – 54. London: SAGE Publications.  Google Scholar
  45. Lawrence, T. B., R. Suddaby, and B. Leca. 2009. Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Google Scholar
  46. Löbler, H. and M. Hahn. 2013. “Measuring Value-in-Context from a Service-Dominant Logic’s Perspective.” Review of Marketing Research 10 (1): 255 – 82.  Google Scholar
  47. Lorenz, S. 2014. Tafeln im flexiblen Überfluss. Bielefeld, Transcript.  Google Scholar
  48. Lusch, R. F. 2017. “The Long Macro View.” Journal of Macromarketing 37 (3): 321 – 3.  Google Scholar
  49. Lusch, R. F. and J. K. M. Watts. 2018. “Redefining the Market: A Treatise on Exchange and Shared Understanding.” Marketing Theory 18 (2): 435 – 49.  Google Scholar
  50. Mantzavinos, C. 2020. “Hermeneutics.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 Edition), edited by E. N. Zalta. Accessed June 12, 2020.  Google Scholar
  51. Payne, A., K. Storbacka, and P. Frow. 2008. “Managing the Co-Creation of Value.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36 (1): 83 – 96.  Google Scholar
  52. Ridder, H. G. 2017. “The Theory Contribution of Case Study Research Designs.” Business Research 10 (2): 281 – 305.  Google Scholar
  53. Rieck, L. 2017. “In Reinickendorf sollen Mitarbeiter von Laib & Seele Spenden veruntreut haben: Tafeln auf Kosten der Armen.” Accessed July 17, 2019.  Google Scholar
  54. Saebi, T., N. J. Foss, and S. Linder. 2019. “Social Entrepreneurship Research: Past Achievement and Future Promises.” Journal of Management 45 (1): 70 – 95.  Google Scholar
  55. Selke, S. 2013. Schamland: Die Armut mitten unter uns. Berlin: Ullstein.  Google Scholar
  56. Seo, M. G. and W. E. D. Creed. 2002. “Institutional Contradictions, Praxis, and Institutional Change: A Dialectical Perspective.” The Academy of Management Review 27 (2): 222 – 47.  Google Scholar
  57. Sigala, M. 2019. “A Market Approach to Social Value Co-creation: Findings and Implications from ‘Mageires’ the Social Restaurant.” Marketing Theory 19 (1): 27 – 45.  Google Scholar
  58. Snower, D. J. 1998. “Evolution of the Welfare State.” In Die Zukunft des Sozialstaats, edited by R. Hauser, 35 – 52. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.  Google Scholar
  59. Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder. 2016. “Armutsgefährdungsschwelle.” Accessed July 17, 2019.  Google Scholar
  60. Süddeutsche Zeitung. 2015. “Wie Tafeln mit Flüchtlingen umgehen.” Accessed July 17, 2019.  Google Scholar
  61. Tafel Deutschland. 2016. “Tafel – Meeting Places, Volunteers Bridging Food Rescue and Social Commitment.” Accessed July 17, 2019.  Google Scholar
  62. Tafel Deutschland. 2018. “Geschichte.” Accessed July 17, 2019.  Google Scholar
  63. Tafel Deutschland. 2019. “Faktenblätter gesamt.” Accessed June 11, 2020.  Google Scholar
  64. Tafel Deutschland. 2020. “Zahlen & Fakten.” Accessed June 11, 2020.  Google Scholar
  65. 2020. “15 Jahre Hilfsaktion Laib und Seele.” Accessed June 11, 2020.!5650081/.  Google Scholar
  66. Thompson, J. B. 1981. Critical Hermeneutics: A Study in the Thought of Paul Ricoeur and Jürgen Habermas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Google Scholar
  67. Thompson, J. B. 1990. Ideology and Modern Culture: Critical Social Theory in the Era of Mass Communication. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.  Google Scholar
  68. Thompson, J. B. 1995. The Media and Modernity: A Social Theory of the Media. Cambridge: Polity Press.  Google Scholar
  69. Trivedi, C. and D. Stokols. 2011. “Social Enterprises and Corporate Enterprises: Fundamental Differences and Defining Features.” Journal of Entrepreneurship 20 (1): 1 – 32.  Google Scholar
  70. Vargo, S. L. and R. F. Lusch. 2016. “Institutions and Axioms: An Extension and Update of Service-Dominant Logic.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 44 (1): 5 – 23.  Google Scholar
  71. Vargo, S. L. and R. F. Lusch. 2017. “Service-Dominant Logic 2025.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 34 (1): 46 – 67.  Google Scholar
  72. Vargo, S. L., M. A. Akaka, and C. M. Vaughan. 2017. “Conceptualizing Value: A Service-Ecosystem View.” Journal of Creating Value 3 (2): 1 – 8.  Google Scholar
  73. Webster, F. E. Jr. and R. F. Lusch. 2013. “Elevating Marketing: Marketing Is Dead! Long Live Marketing!” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 41 (4): 389 – 99.  Google Scholar
  74. Wernicke, C. 2018. “Es ist Genug für alle da.” Süddeutsche Zeitung München, March 7.  Google Scholar
  75. Wieland, H., K. Koskela-Huotari, and S. L. Vargo. 2016. “Extending Actor Participation in Value Creation: An Institutional View.” Journal of Strategic Marketing 24 (3 – 4): 210 – 26.  Google Scholar
  76. Yin, R. K. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, Cal.: Sage Publications.  Google Scholar
  77. Zimmermann, E. W. 1951. World Resources and Industries: A Functional Appraisal of Agricultural and Industrial Materials. New York: Harper.  Google Scholar


This paper studies resource making and the emergence of proto-institutions in Tafel Deutschland, an umbrella organization for more than 940 food banks or pantries in Germany, deploying a hermeneutical context model. Shedding light on value co-creation processes in the German Tafel field, we analyze how the activities and interpretations of or within Tafel organizations devoted to resource integration and resource making relate to their two missions and how their methods of dealing with conflict have led to the emergence of proto-institutions. The economic value co-created within in the Tafel field builds on the creation of social and ecological value. The context affects economic and social value co-created within the Tafel field differently: Whereas economic value rests on individual experience and perception, the social value resulting from the field actors’ activities is subject to dispute and defense.

Table of Contents

Section Title Page Action Price
Michaela Haase / Ingrid Becker: Resource-Making and Proto-Institutions in the German Tafel Field: Applying a Hermeneutical Context Model 1
Abstract 1
1. Introduction 1
2. Context and Context Models 4
2.1 Value Co-Creation in Context 5
2.2 Contextualized Structure and Symbolic Meaning 6
3. Methodology and Case Study 7
3.1 Data Sources 7
3.2 Interpretation and Reinterpretation 9
4. The Contextualized Representation of the Tafel System 1
4.1 The Spatiotemporal Setting: Historical Development of the Tafel System 1
4.2 Structural Aspects 1
4.3 The Field of Interaction 1
4.3.1 The Making of Resources 1
4.3.2 Conflict-Related Interactions and Emerging (Proto‐)Institutions 1
5. Discussion 2
5.1 Economic and Social Value 2
5.2 Managerial Implications 2
6. Conclusions 2
References 2
Appendix: Press Coverage of the Conflict at the Essen Tafel 3