Resource-Based View in Marketing Literature

Since early studies, the resource-based view that emerged in strategic management in the mid-1980s has been used extensively in many different disciplines, such as management and marketing, production management, and supply chain. This view, which focuses on the effects of the resources that businesses have and their ability to use these resources on business performance and gaining competitive advantage, focuses on the characteristics of the resources and capabilities that companies should have to achieve permanent superior company performance and thus to achieve sustainable competitive advantage. This study includes a comprehensive analysis of the resource-based view used to explain firm performance in the marketing literature. For this, first of all, the scope and development of the resource-based view are presented in detail, and then its use in the field of marketing is examined. In the study, the importance of marketing efforts within the scope of resource-based view in achieving a sustainable competitive advantage is discussed. Marketing performance outputs indicate all business activities due to their sphere of influence. For this reason, evaluating the contribution of marketing activities to business performance is one of the important agendas of businesses. In this context, studies evaluating marketing activities within the framework of the resource-based view in the literature were examined, and the contribution of the resource-based view to the marketing literature was reviewed. As a result of the research, it has been seen that the resource-based view is used extensively as a theoretical framework for the effect of marketing activities on the performance of enterprises. In some studies in the field of marketing, the resource-based view is used in association with other theories.


Introduction
The relationship between the resources and performance of companies has been one of the critical research areas of both strategic management and marketing discipline for a long time. In marketing research, the resource-based view (RBV) or resource-based theory (RBT) is used extensively to explain and predict competitive advantage and performance outcomes (Kozlenkova et al., 2014). The resource-based view, which emerges from the fact that the performance differences between businesses cannot be explained only by the industry structure, focuses on the effect of businesses' resources and their ability to use these resources on performance. Specific resources are insufficient for a firm to gain a competitive advantage. Andersén (2011) argues that a resource must meet a set of criteria for competitive advantage by emphasizing concepts such as managerial capabilities and marketing capabilities to create superior performance. These criteria, abbreviated as FMMAD by the author, are fit to resources, management capability, marketing capability, firm appropriation of rent, and non-competitive disadvantages. Accordingly, for a company to gain a competitive advantage, the relevant resource should be compatible with its existing resources, the company should have the necessary management and marketing skills to benefit from this resource fully, and others should not allocate the rent obtained from the resource, and the resource should not cause other competitive disadvantages [1:94]. RBV has found application in many different disciplines, such as marketing, management information systems, production management, and supply chain (Corte et al., 2017).

Page | 30
A comprehensive review of RBV used in marketing literature is included in this study. Accordingly, the role of marketing activities with an RBV lens in achieving a sustainable competitive advantage is discussed in the study. In the marketing literature, the resource-based approach is handled differently from the strategic management literature by including marketing orientation (Koçak et al., 2005). Although the role of specific resources such as brands, customer and distributor relations in providing and maintaining competitive advantage is accepted in the studies that are considered as the building blocks of the resource-based view (J. Barney, 1991;Grant, 1991;Wernerfelt, 1984), the general principles and propositions of the resource-based approach are not directly associated with the concept. However, using marketing-specific resources and capabilities through market-specific processes to create superior customer value that results in competitive advantage and corporate performance significantly converges the resource-based approach and marketing.

The Evolution of Resource-Based View
The origins of RBV are based on distinctive abilities (core competencies), Penrose's (1959) firm growth theory and Ricardo's (1817) rent theory (J. B. Barney & Clark, 2007, p. 5;Keskin et al., 2016, p. 298). The "resources approach" developed in Penrose's (1959) classic book "The Theory of Firm Growth" has had a significant impact on strategic management. The study includes significant contributions that form the basis of resource-based theory and analyzes firms' growth capabilities. While traditional economists only examine specific resources that make up the production function, Penrose's management team has reviewed the impact of resources such as senior management and business capabilities on competition, expressing that some firms outperform with their resources and resource management skills. Penrose defined businesses as a collection of efficient resources gathered under a managerial roof consisting of many individuals and groups coordinating with each other (J. B. Barney & Clark, 2007, pp. 11-12). According to Penrose, the growth of a firm is limited by the productive opportunities that arise as a function of the productive resources under the firm's control and the space determined by the firm's management to coordinate the use of these resources. These productive resources, which are under the control of the enterprise, vary from enterprise to enterprise, even if they operate in the same industry; that is, they are heterogeneous (J. B. Barney & Clark, 2007).
Based on two fundamental assumptions, resource heterogeneity and resource immobility (J. Barney, 1991), RBV first entered the strategic management literature with (1984) (1984) research titled "A Resource View of the Firm." In this study, Wernerfelt explained his approaches to the source-based view by stating that it is possible to define a concept with two different theories as an example of dualist logic. He emphasized that a company can gain a competitive advantage with strategies based on the external environment, which Porter focuses on, and by turning to internal resources that enable it to gain a competitive advantage (J. B. Barney & Clark, 2007, p. 14;Keskin et al., 2016, p. 298).
The second research in the field of strategic management on the resource-based approach was published in the same year by Rumelt (1984). While Wernerfelt focused on developing a theory about the differences in firm performance in terms of the resources under the control of the firm, Rumelt focused on the reasons for the existence of firms and focused on their ability to generate more efficient economic rent than other organizations through the theory of the strategic firm (J. B. Barney & Clark, 2007, p. 15). Rumelt (1984) is also the first person to define firms as a bundle of productive resources and to suggest that the economic values of these resources vary according to the context in which they are applied (Nothnagel, 2008, p. 20). In addition, Rumelt conceptualized the tools that protect these resources from imitation and maintain the rent flow as "isolation mechanisms" (Mahoney & Pandian, 1992). While many isolation mechanisms exist, three that prevent the imitation of resources and capabilities have traditionally been identified: property rights, learning and development costs, and causal ambiguity (Hoopes et al., 2003;Madhok et al., 2010;Rumelt, 1984). The concept of "causal ambiguity" stands out as an important isolation mechanism in terms of limiting or completely preventing imitation (Peteraf, 1993, pp. 182-183). Causal ambiguity refers to the uncertainty created by the inability of other firms to fully understand the link between the resources under the firm's control and the competitive advantage it has achieved. Since competitors do not fully understand this link, resources and capabilities cannot be entirely copied. Under conditions of causal ambiguity, it is unclear which resources and capabilities create sustained competitive advantage. It is not easy to understand why a firm outperforms other firms. At the heart of this difficulty of understanding lies causal ambiguity. The actions that need to be taken to imitate the strategies of firms with sustainable competitive advantage cannot be known precisely by other firms due to causal uncertainty and cannot be copied unless these factors are known (J. Barney, 1991, pp. 109-110;Lippman & Rumelt, 1982, p. 420). Thanks to isolation mechanisms, company-specific resources, and capabilities are protected from imitation; Thus, other businesses are prevented from obtaining rent from here. It also provides a competitive advantage to the firm by creating barriers to entry into the industry and controlling the mobility of resources. Rumelt's concept of isolation mechanisms (at the firm analysis level); is similar to the movement barriers developed by Mains and Porter, which are an extension of Bain's (1959) barriers to entry (in the industrial setting). In this sense, although the resource-based approach points to a different level of analysis, the industry-based approach is seen as an extension of the famous structure-behavior-performance paradigm. While the factors that prevent entry into the industry, which Porter (1980) classified into six items, create entry barriers, isolation mechanisms also contain factors that prevent the imitation of resources and talents between businesses. Due to limited rationality and causal ambiguity, the resources and capabilities under the control of enterprises cannot be fully imitated, thus creating a heterogeneous structure in the industry (Mahoney & Pandian, 1992, pp. 373-374;Peteraf, 1993, pp. 182-183).
The third article published on the resource-based view in strategic management literature belongs to Barney (1986b). Barney (J. B. Barney, 1986b), with an approach similar to Wernerfelt's, suggested that it would be possible to develop a permanent theory of superior performance based on the characteristics of the resources under a firm's control. However, he went beyond Wernerfelt (1984) in stating that this theory would be much more effective than theories of competitive advantage based on firms' market positions. With the new approaches developed by Barney (J. B. Barney, 1986b) as the main explanatory of enduring superior firm performance, a transformation from the resource-based view to "resource-based theory" has begun (J. B. Barney & Clark, 2007, p. 16). Barney (J. B. Barney, 1986b), emphasizing strategic factor markets, defined these markets as the markets where the necessary resources are provided to implement a strategy. Accordingly, while the strategic factor markets are in perfect competition, businesses cannot earn above normal even when they successfully implement their product market strategies. However, strategic factor markets are not always perfectly competitive. Firms may have different expectations regarding the future value of a strategic asset. Under these conditions of imperfect competition, higher-than-normal returns may be achieved as the cost of resources remains significantly lower than their economic value (J. B. Barney, 1986b, pp. 1231-1232; J. B. Barney & Clark, 2007, pp. 16-17). In imperfect factor markets, firms can earn above-normal returns in one or a combination of the following ways (J. B. Barney, 1986b, p. 1238):

•
Firms that have greater anticipation of the future value of the strategic asset can use this foresight to avoid economic losses and earn profits while securing the necessary resources to implement their strategies.

•
Through a factor of luck, which is beyond the firm's control.
Dierickx and Cool (1989) expanded Barney's (1986b) arguments and emphasized that some resources the firm will need to realize its strategies cannot be obtained from strategic factor markets. Accordingly, reputation, loyal customers, and trust cannot be traded in strategic factor markets. Likewise, the workforce owned by the firm cannot be supplied from these markets. Because firms do not employ a generic workforce, firm-specific skills, knowledge, values, and vocational education and training create a firm-specific resource accumulation (Dierickx & Cool, 1989, pp. 1504-1507). In addition, since employees' productivity is affected by organizational situational and motivational factors, the performance shown in one business may not be at the same level of effectiveness in another company (Grant, 1991, p. 121).
Firms have several tradable and non-tradable (non-transferable) resources. Some non-tradable resources are formed within the company over time with knowledge and experience and reflect the characteristics specific to the business. Assets that can be bought and sold easily cannot provide a sustainable competitive advantage. Because the assets to create positions that will provide competitive advantage depend on supporting them with business-specific knowledge and learning factors. Thus, assets acquired through experience and differentiation will be difficult to imitate by other businesses. As business assets consist of nontransferable, inimitable, and irreplaceable assets, they become critical or strategic assets for businesses (Dierickx & Cool, 1989, pp. 1504-1510. In addition, Dierickx and Cool (1989) stated that the privileged resource position of a firm depends on the ease of imitation, and the following characteristics can generally explain the imitability of an asset: Interconnectedness of asset stocks), In these four studies -Wernerfelt (1984), Rumelt (1984), Barney (1986b), and Dierickx and Cool (1989) -that reveal the basic principles of resource-based approach/theory in the field of strategic management, firm resources are accepted as the unit of analysis and a permanent superior firm is established. It has been stated that it is possible to develop a performance theory; The characteristics of the resources that will mediate this performance have been revealed.
In addition, Barney (1986a) explained that organizational culture could be a source of competitive advantage in the resource-based view. He explained the characteristics of the organizational culture that will provide this advantage within the essential characteristics of the resource-based approach. Accordingly, a firm culture's sustainable competitive advantage and, as a natural consequence, superior firm performance depend on three conditions (J. B. Barney, 1986a): • Culture must be valuable; It should be structured to enable the company to engage in activities that will bring high sales with high-profit margins and add economic value to the company. • Culture must be rare; It should have unique characteristics not found in other company cultures.
• Culture must be completely inimitable; It is not enough that the organizational culture is only valuable and rare. At the same time, it must have some company-specific features that competitors cannot easily imitate.

Terminology Used in Resource-Based View
This section describes various terms used in the resource-based view.
• Time Compression Diseconomies: The principle of time compression diseconomies has the exact mechanism as the law of diminishing returns in capital investment theory (Dierickx & Cool, 1989). The amount of initial resources that firms have affects the accumulation rate of resources in future periods; firms that transfer/accumulate these resources quickly face disproportionate cost results. For example, R&D and fast advertising campaigns tend to be less productive than similar spending over a more extended period (Grant, 1991, p. 128). For another example, "in a two-year MBA program, students may not have the same stock of knowledge in one year even if all inputs except time are doubled." To express the concept as an isolation mechanism, some resources and capabilities acquired by businesses due to a specific time, effort, and experience cannot be copied by competitors in a short time. They cannot quickly achieve the same performance level (Dierickx & Cool, 1989, p. 1507Doğan, 2004, p. 34).
• Asset Mass Efficiencies: According to Dierickx and Cool (1989), businesses that first possess the necessary resources for competitive advantage continue to maintain their competitive advantage over time (Grant, 1991, p. 128). As in the saying, "success brings success," having a superior stock of resources at the beginning provides an advantage to the company by facilitating the accumulation of assets in the future, and the principle of mass efficiency of assets explains this. Starting at low initial levels makes it difficult to accumulate stocks of the greatest assets (Dierickx & Cool, 1989). •

Interconnectedness of Asset Stocks:
This concept refers to the interactions of resources that provide a competitive advantage to the business. Due to this interaction, it is not easy to identify and imitate which resource has a more significant impact on competitive advantage. A resource that provides a competitive advantage to the business gains this advantage by being together with other resources due to a specific accumulation (Dierickx & Cool, 1989, p. 1508).
• Asset Erosion: It means that the resources under the control of the enterprise will deteriorate in time, just like the physical facilities and equipment, if the necessary maintenance is not done, and they will lose their competitive advantage (Dierickx & Cool, 1989, p. 1510).
• Resources Heterogeneous: Resource heterogeneity, one of the two fundamental assumptions of the resourcebased view, states that organizations are different from each other in terms of their resources and capabilities, even if they are in the same or similar sectors; that is, the resources they have are not homogeneous (J. Barney, 1991, p. 101). What creates competitive advantage among organizations is provided by the implementation of strategies developed thanks to these different resources and capabilities (Keskin et al., 2016, p. 299).
• Resource Immobility: Resource immobility, the second basic assumption of the resource-based view, states that resources and capabilities do not have full mobility between firms; that is, they cannot be easily transferred between firms (J. Barney, 1991; J. B. Barney, 1986b).

Resources, Capabilities, and Core Capabilities in Resource-Based View
All the tangible and intangible (tangible/intangible) elements that the enterprises benefit from in producing goods and services constitute the enterprise's resources. Material resources: building, land, land, machinery, equipment, workforce, etc., denotes assets. Intangible resources are brand, patent, knowledge and experience, corporate image, corporate identity, etc. defines intangible assets. The ability to use assets refers to the capabilities of the business. The most important determinant of the performance difference between businesses is these abilities. Businesses may have similar or completely different resources; however, the level of utilization of these resources drives them to different performance results. Within the resource-based view framework, the enterprises' resources and capabilities have a heterogeneous and immobile structure. Due to this feature, even businesses operating in the same or similar sectors have different performance outputs. When talents strategically differentiate a company, they turn into core competencies. Core competencies are the capabilities that represent the spirit of the business that competitors cannot easily imitate to create a competitive advantage, that make customer value, and that can be disseminated (Hamel & Prahalad, 1996). Hult et al. (2005) define valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable resources as strategic resources, and they state that, as shown in Figure 1, resources direct the strategic actions of firms, thus creating a competitive advantage, and this advantage increases business performance. Figure 1. The core concepts of the resource-based view

The Concept of Resources in RBV
Resources refer to all tangible and intangible assets owned by the business. Although there are different definitions regarding the definition and classification of resources in the literature, it is observed that resources are evaluated in terms of competitive advantage in all definitions (J. Barney, 1991;Grant, 1991;Hunt & Morgan, 1995;Wernerfelt, 1984). Wernerfelt (1984, p. 172) defined resources as "everything (tangible and intangible) that reveals the strengths and weaknesses of businesses". Barney (1991, pp. 101-102) stated that firm resources encompass everything from the assets of firms to all their qualities, capabilities, organizational processes, knowledge, and information systems they have. It is possible to classify these numerous sources into three categories: • Physical Resources: The physical capital assets of the firm. The technology used in the company's facilities and equipment, geographical location, raw material sources, etc.

•
Human Resources: The workforce of the company, the education, and experience of the employees, the relations between the employees, etc.

•
Organizational Resources: Firm's formal reporting structure, planning, control and coordination systems, relationships between informal groups, etc.
Grant (1991, p. 11)classified the resources into six categories. These are financial resources, physical resources, human resources, technological resources, company image, and organizational resources.

Capabilities, Core Capabilities, and Dynamic Capabilities
While resources are the inputs of the production process, capabilities refer to the capacity to use resources to perform various tasks and activities. While resources contribute to creating the company's capabilities, capabilities also constitute the essential inputs of competitive advantage (Grant, 1991, pp. 118-119). As stated in the previous section, Wernerfelt (1984) and Barney (1991) evaluated all the assets and capabilities that the business has and revealed the strengths and weaknesses of the business under the name of "resources" without making any distinction between resources and capabilities.
A firm's resources must have four basic features to provide sustainable competitive advantage (J. Barney, 1991, pp. 105-112): • Value: Firm resources can be seen as sustainable competitive resources only if they add value to the firm. In other words, resources can be defined as valuable if they can be applied by transforming them into strategies that will increase the firm's efficiency. Resources become invaluable resources for the firm when they enable the firm to capitalize on opportunities or neutralize threats. • Rareness: When many competitors own or have the potential to hold valuable resources, they lose the ability to provide a sustainable competitive advantage. Although having valuable but widespread resources allows firms to survive, they do not mediate them to gain sustainable competitive advantage. Therefore, valuable resources must be a rarity among current and potential competitors.

•
Inimitable: Valuable and rare resources can be seen as a sustainable competitive advantage only when not acquired (copied) by current and potential competitors who do not own them. However, competitors can imitate firm resources perfectly, and in this case, resources cannot fulfill their functions of providing sustainable competitive advantage. Sources cannot be imitated due to different historical conditions, causal ambiguity, and social complexity. • Non-substitutable: Resources must be valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable to provide a sustainable competitive advantage. The relevant resource must be irreplaceable by another strategically equivalent resource. When competitors provide alternative resources for valuable, rare, and inimitable resources, competitors can create alternatives by applying the same strategies, even if these resources are rare and inimitable. In this case, resources lose their competitive advantage.
These valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable organization resources are essential in creating and implementing strategies that will provide them a competitive advantage. At the core of the resource-based approach, these four main features of resources in achieving sustainable competitive advantage are based on the assumption that resources are heterogeneous and immobile (Keskin et al., 2016, p. 299).
Amit and Schoemaker (1993) defined talent as the capacity to use resources and organizational processes to achieve a desired result. Capabilities are knowledge-based, tangible, or intangible processes that accumulate over time and through complex interactions through the firm's resources. Capabilities generally develop in the functional area (e.g., customer relationship management in marketing) by combining physical, technology, and human resources at the institutional level. According to Aaker (1989, p. 91), who defines capabilities as the things that the firm does better than its competitors, a strategic focus can be created on the assets and capabilities of the firm by asking four practical questions to the firm (Aaker, 1989, p. 93): • What resources and capabilities are available for the industry structure? What resources and capabilities need to be procured or neutralized to compete successfully? • What are the resources and capabilities that create sustainable competitive advantage? How do you choose the most appropriate ones to develop, strengthen or maintain your current status? • How would you act to build the resources and capabilities to support your SRU? • Can competitors' superior resources and abilities be neutralized? Day (1994, p. 38) defines capabilities as a complex set of skills and collective learning packages executed through organizational processes to coordinate functional activities. Hamel and Prahalad (1996) developed the concept of core competencies and defined them as a group of skills and technologies that allow businesses to benefit their customers. In the resource-based approach, the concept of "capabilities" and "competencies" can be used interchangeably, as they are defined as the ability of enterprises to use their resources (Moorman & Day, 2016, p. 6). However, in the literature, it is seen that the term competence by some authors is used to cover both the firm's resources and capabilities (Menguc et al., 2007, p. 315).
Core competencies are not limited to a single product/service; they are capabilities that contribute to the business's overall product/service competitiveness. These core competencies, which can outlive the product or service, significantly impact the company's growth and competitive differentiation potential as they contribute to its competitiveness. In this respect, the authors stated that businesses should be evaluated not only as product and service providers but also based on their competencies. To effectively manage the core competencies, which are the soul of the business, it is necessary to share the consensus for these core competencies in business management and to be perceived as an integral part of the management process (Hamel & Prahalad, 1996). On the other hand, the concepts of capabilities and core capabilities/competencies do not mean the same thing.
Core competencies should not be confused with the business's assets or other competencies that give it a competitive advantage. Often resources, capabilities, sources of competitive advantage, and critical success factors are confused with core competencies. Core competencies are an essential source of competitive advantage with unseen customer value and cost opportunities in the business's balance sheet.
While all core competencies are sources of competitive advantage, not all sources of competitive advantage are core competencies. Likewise, while every core competency is a critical success factor, not every critical success factor will be a core competency. Capabilities are considered "core capabilities" when they strategically differentiate a company. For a competency to be defined as a core competency, it must have the following three characteristics (Hamel & Prahalad, 1996): • Must create customer value, • Differentiate from competitors, • It should be disseminated.
The issue of how organizations will position their resources and capabilities in the face of rapidly changing external environmental conditions has been discussed by Teece et al. (1997) with the concept of "dynamic capabilities." Dynamic capabilities arise from the view that it will not be possible for companies to maintain their competitive advantage with their existing resources, capabilities, and core competencies in rapid and unpredictable changes (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000), the capacity to build, integrate and restructure internal and external capabilities to adapt to changing environmental conditions (Teece et al., 1997). Depending on the changing environmental conditions and time, the quality and quantity of the resources and abilities of the enterprises also change.
The advantages of these resources and capabilities may lose their effect or become a disadvantage depending on the change, or conversely, disadvantages may turn into advantages (Keskin et al., 2016, p. 302). Dynamic capabilities are organizational routines in which the resource base of the business is changed to create new values, and resources and capabilities are brought together to produce strategies (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000). In other words, the sustainability of competitive advantage depends not only on the quality of the bundle of resources owned by the firm but also on its ability to renew, redefine and allocate its resources and capabilities to cope with changing external environmental conditions (Chan et al., 2004, p. 19). Dynamic capabilities serve three essential purposes: (1) seizing and taking on opportunities and competitors in the external environment, (2) valuing rewards, (3) incorporating components and intangibles to maintain competitive advantage, and reconfiguring ports and territories (Teece et al., 1997). Day (2014) argues that dynamic capabilities involve a hidden inside-out approach. For this reason, it emphasizes that companies focusing on developing their dynamic capabilities to gain competitive advantage should adopt an outside-in approach.

Resource-Based View in Terms of Marketing
The distinctive role of marketing in achieving business-wide goals and objectives has come to the fore with the paradigm shift that has taken place with the adoption of marketing as a process rather than a separate organizational management function. Since marketing activities are related to all experiences that will create value for the customer, the marketing department's responsibility at all touch points along the value chain has made marketing a primary function of the business with a managerial focus (Wind & Robertson, 1983, p. 12). In this context, RBV's discussions regarding the competitive advantage and business performance were also reflected in applications and research in the marketing field (Cerit, 2014).
It is known that ideas and concepts from strategic management are frequently used in the field of strategic marketing. Pursuing sustainable competitive advantage is the essential starting point of both disciplines (Fahy & Smithee, 1999). The focus of marketing theorists and experts in strategic management who focus on the RBV approach is to gain a competitive advantage that enables an organization to survive. Accordingly, the problem of gaining and maintaining competitive advantage is critical for both disciplines (Srivastaba et al., 2001).
According to the RBV perspective, a firm's organizational resources and capabilities, such as its sales force and marketing capabilities, form the basis of its competitive advantage (J. B. Barney & Hesterly, 2015;Wernerfelt, 1984). In this context, functional capabilities such as brand management capabilities, marketing mix functional capabilities, market perception and information management capabilities ( In many studies, market orientation is the primary source of sustainable competitive advantage. The ability to recognize the market, learn, and use knowledge in strategy and action is crucial to communication performance (Corte et al., 2017). Many frameworks offer an essential framework for the resource-based approach in gaining a sustainable competitive advantage in marketing. For example, when a company defines its general outputs as content from the point of view of the brand concept, it turns out that it does not gain a permanent competitive advantage because there is a socially complex relationship between the brand and its examples that cannot be imitated by being forced by competitors (J. B. Barney, 2014). In the resource-based view, relational ties refer to networking properties. These capabilities make internal resources more efficient due to the results obtained from firms that maintain the interaction between execution and internal resources (Beise-Zee, 2022).
Brand reputation, which is a marketing resource, can be seen as a valuable resource that provides a competitive advantage to the business and increases business performance (El Nemar et al., 2022). Reputation is a company-specific, highly uncertain resource, so it is difficult to imitate another. Therefore, a positive corporate reputation or brand reputation is seen as a rare source of sustainable competitive advantage that generates value for the firm from the RBV perspective (Arbelo et al., 2021;El Nemar et al., 2022).
Marketing capabilities refer to the combined processes that enable the firm to fulfill its marketing obligations by adapting to the market's changing conditions with its resources, knowledge, and skills. In other words, marketing capabilities refer to businesses' effective use of resources to create value for customers and deliver this value in line with desired goals (Morgan et al., 2012, p. 273). Day (1994) defines marketing capabilities as integrative processes for using the firm's intangible and tangible resources to understand the specific needs of consumers, achieve competitive product differentiation, and create superior brand value. Once these abilities are developed, they will become difficult to copy by opponents. Therefore, marketing capabilities are essential to gain a competitive advantage (Kamboj et al., 2015).
In the marketing field, the resource-based view focuses on gaining a competitive advantage by arranging the marketing organization and activities per the conditions of the resource-based approach. Establishing the marketing organization in a way to develop valuable, rare resources and capabilities that cannot be easily imitated and substituted by competitors will contribute to the preparation of differentiated presentations according to the demands and needs of customers (J. B. Barney, 2014; Koçak et al., 2005). However, it is also emphasized that focusing on developing valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable resources (inside-out approach), accepted as the core of RBV in the marketing literature, can create a myopic perspective. For this reason, organizations need designs (outside-in approach) to prepare them for the opportunities and threats in the external environment. For this reason, the skills that need to be developed are "adaptive abilities" that increase and develop dynamic abilities with an outside-in approach (Day, 2014).

Conclusion
The resource-based view focuses on strategic resources that help a business outperform its competitors by focusing on tangible and intangible internal factors rather than theories that focus on external factors to improve the performance of a business. Thus, it deals with the performance of enterprises with an inside-out approach. It focuses on the role of valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable resources and their ability to use these resources to achieve business performance and sustainable competitive advantage. RBT makes significant contributions to both disciplines, as the focus of RBT is on superior company performance and achieving sustainable competitive advantage, which is one of the critical issues in both strategic management and marketing. In the marketing literature, RBT has been used extensively as a theoretical framework to understand how marketing activities lead to strategic resources that will increase the long-term firm performance of businesses. When the studies on the subject in the literature are examined within the scope of this study, it is seen that it can be considered as a source of sustainable competitive advantage in terms of strategic management of marketing resources and capabilities with an RBT perspective.
According to the RBV perspective, organizational resources and capabilities such as a firm's sales force, brand management capabilities, market perception, and information management capabilities form the basis of competitive advantage. The fact that these capabilities are difficult to develop and imitate by competitors is a critical factor in increasing firm performance. Since essential perspectives such as market orientation, which are prominent in the marketing discipline, are designed as companyspecific resources that create value, it can be said that they are compatible with the RBV perspective.
The usage area of RBV in marketing literature is quite broad. The RBV approach has been used in many studies in different marketing areas, from brand strategies to international marketing. Also, the association of RBV with other theories has been widely made. Current research also highlights the importance of RBV in the field of marketing. Issues such as digital marketing activities, market orientation, and new product performance are examined from the perspective of RBV. These studies show that RBV is still up to date and provides an essential framework for formulating marketing strategies.
Integrating a resource-based view into marketing is essential for gaining a sustainable competitive advantage. Marketing resources such as brand reputation, marketing capabilities, and customer focus can potentially earn a competitive advantage. Since these resources are difficult to imitate, they contribute to the provision of sustainable competitive advantage.
As a result, the importance and impact of the resource-based approach in marketing is increasingly emphasized. Research shows that marketing activities have strategic significance throughout the enterprise and that the marketing department should bear responsibility throughout the entire value chain. Marketing capabilities and organizational resources play a significant role in achieving and maintaining competitive advantage. Even if firms have few strategic resources, they cannot gain or maintain a competitive advantage because of their low marketing capabilities.
This study, which focuses on using a resource-based view in the marketing field, has several limitations that can be addressed in future research. First, in marketing, intangible resources primarily focus on their effects on firm performance. The difficulties experienced in quantitatively revealing the contribution of fundamental marketing indicators to the business and the challenges encountered in determining the effects of expenditures on marketing activities on the results of the relevant period create many resistances to the definition, conceptualization, and application of the concept of marketing performance. It can conceptually and empirically demonstrate how the resource-based view will contribute to these challenges in future research.
In addition, various studies that deal with the resource-based view by integrating it with other theories have been evaluated in the article. Still, these theories have been detailed due to the scope and limitations of the study. Future research can provide a detailed perspective on these theories and show how the resource-based view supports and complements the theoretical frameworks widely adopted in marketing.
Finally, in future studies, the scope of the research can be expanded, and one of the most important criticisms of RBV, the claims that it is tautological, can be examined. Because resources and performance are not directly related in the literature, many researchers reveal that RBV does not offer a tautological approach. However, presenting arguments to refute these claims with current studies will make an essential contribution to the literature.