conceptualizing online value co-creation and co … · social enterprises (ses) are growing...
TRANSCRIPT
Association for Information SystemsAIS Electronic Library (AISeL)
Research-in-Progress Papers ECIS 2019 Proceedings
5-15-2019
CONCEPTUALIZING ONLINE VALUE CO-CREATION AND CO-DESTRUCTION INSOCIAL ENTERPRISESBehnam AbedinQueensland University of Technology, [email protected]
Reihaneh BidarQueensland University of Technology, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2019_rip
This material is brought to you by the ECIS 2019 Proceedings at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been accepted for inclusion in Research-in-Progress Papers by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contact [email protected].
Recommended CitationAbedin, Behnam and Bidar, Reihaneh, (2019). "CONCEPTUALIZING ONLINE VALUE CO-CREATION AND CO-DESTRUCTION IN SOCIAL ENTERPRISES". In Proceedings of the 27th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS),Stockholm & Uppsala, Sweden, June 8-14, 2019. ISBN 978-1-7336325-0-8 Research-in-Progress Papers.https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2019_rip/48
Conceptualizing Online Value Co-Creation and Co-Destruction in
Social Enterprises
Research in progress
Abedin, Behnam, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia,
Bidar, Reihaneh, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia,
Abstract
Value co-creation as a collaborative effort in creating value provides an innovative model of
collaboration for organizations. While online communities are considered a valuable source of value
co-creation, factors such as the absence of trust and lack of transparency may lead to the emergence of
value co-destruction. Social enterprises (SEs) are growing business models in social entrepreneurship,
and widely use information and communication technologies like online communities to spread the word
about their social impact. The main aim of this research in progress paper is to understand the role of
online communities in value co-creation and co-destruction in social enterprise context. In particular,
this paper will: (1) investigate the factors that influence online value co-creation and co-destruction in
the ecosystem of SEs (2) understand the outcomes resulting from value co-creation and co-destruction
for SEs, and (3) explore the challenges SEs are facing that can be addressed through online value co-
creation. We propose an initial conceptual framework identifying online value co-creation and co-
destruction in the ecosystem of SEs and show how they relate to the specific challenges of SEs. This
work advances current theoretical knowledge in SEs research and will guide practitioners to build more
efficient communities and scale their work.
Keywords: Social Enterprises, Online Communities, Value Co-creation, Value Co-destruction
1 Introduction
Social Enterprises (SEs), as organizations with hybrid and innovative business models (Battilana and
Lee, 2014, Luisa and Magdalena, 2017), have gained a considerable amount of attention during the last
decade in entrepreneurship sector. SEs play a significant role in modern societies as they address the
rise for ethical consciousness of citizens and the need for businesses to be socially responsible
(Agostinelli, 2010). In addition, it is argued that SEs are important for future of communities because
they fill the gaps in providing community services for the public by governments or private companies
and support groups of people who are marginalized due to their disadvantages (Mason et al., 2007, Gray
et al., 2003). Although SEs benefit society in different ways such as providing employment and training
opportunities for marginalized people, few studies have focused on SEs as organizations with limited
resources (Bridgstock et al., 2010), who need to interact with their stakeholders to co-create value
(Romero and Molina, 2011), which can positively affect their growth and sustainability (Ge et al., 2019).
Value creation happens through the collaboration of the actors’ network rather than firm and customer
only (Vargo and Lusch, 2016). Participation of multiple stakeholders in value co-creation can create
Abedin and Bidar /Value Co-Creation/Co-Destruction in Social Enterprises
Twenty-Seventh European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2019), Stockholm-Uppsala, Sweden. 2
valuable knowledge and resources for organizations since each type of stakeholder has their own set of
unique capabilities, experiences and resources (Kazadi et al., 2016) and can have a contribution of
financial or altruism to fulfill stockholders’ needs (Bidar et al., 2017). These unique capabilities,
experiences, and resources are important for SEs because they typically rely on multiple and diverse
stakeholders to co-create value to gain competitive advantages in their dynamic and complex ecosystem
(Barrett et al., 2016). However, in some cases, value co-creation practices can have adverse impacts,
which means that not all interactions between actors lead to positive outcomes (Järvi et al., 2018).
Previous research has shown that where value is co-created through interactions, value co-destruction
can also emerge as an opposing phenomenon (Plé and Chumpitaz Cáceres, 2010, Echeverri and Skålén,
2011). It is stated that researchers in Information Systems (IS) research should consider value co-
destruction, as an emerging topic, when they study value co-creation concept (Vartiainen and Tuunanen,
2016).
Online Communities, as an information system, support organizations to co-create value by facilitating
collaboration and communication of members as well as providing tools to manage the co-created
knowledge (Füller et al., 2009). Online communities are considered as valuable source of value co-
creation for their members (Gebauer et al., 2013, Eggert et al., 2018) by allowing their members to
participate in collaborative networks (in a cost-effective and widespread way) to share knowledge,
integrate resources, support each other, increase trust and create an identity to the community (Romero
and Molina, 2011). However, previous research has shown that where value is co-created through
interactions, value co-destruction can also emerge as an opposing phenomenon (Plé and Chumpitaz
Cáceres, 2010, Echeverri and Skålén, 2011), which has received less attention in comparison with value
co-creation research during last years.
While most of recent research on value co-creation through online communities has focused on
relationships between customers and organizations (e.g. Füller, 2010, Gebauer et al., 2013), less
attention has been paid to the interactions between multiple stakeholders, in the ecosystem of SEs in
particular, who can co-create value by using online communities and also what factors may lead to value
co-destruction. In addition, to date, little is known about the outcomes of online value co-creation and
co-destruction behaviors and their potential impact on the challenges that SEs are facing. To address
these gaps in the literature, we aim to answer three research questions in this study: (i) “What are the
factors that influence value co-creation and co-destruction behaviors through online communities in the
ecosystem of SEs?”, (ii) “What are the outcomes resulting from online value co-creation and co-
destruction behaviors of stakeholders?”, and (iii) “What challenges do SEs face in their ecosystem that
can be addressed through online value co-creation?”
The importance of this study is that it is one of the first studies investigating value co-creation and co-
destruction behaviors through online communities in the social enterprise context. In addition, this study
leads to enhancing collaborations of SEs in online communities to improve their performance and
sustainability. The outcome of this study will also lead to implementing a successful online community,
as an information system for SEs, to optimize their engagements and use of resources. This research,
therefore, brings an interesting perspective to value co-creation and co-destruction in information
systems literature. This study also has the potential to develop a better understanding of social
enterprises with a unique feature of having dual objectives (social missions and financial objectives).
The remainder of this paper flows as follows. First, a literature review on the definition, challenges of
SEs, and the potential of online value co-creation and co-destruction will be provided. Next, we will
discuss the theoretical background of this research which will be followed by presenting an initial
conceptual framework for online value co-creation and co-destruction in the ecosystem of SEs. Lastly,
we explain the contributions of this study and future research plan as the next steps of this research in
progress.
Abedin and Bidar /Value Co-Creation/Co-Destruction in Social Enterprises
Twenty-Seventh European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2019), Stockholm-Uppsala, Sweden. 3
2 Literature Review
We conducted a search in the existing literature to find the relevant works of previous researchers on
social enterprise, online communities, as well as value co-creation and co-destruction to understand the
definition of SEs, the factors influencing value co-creation and co-destruction behaviors as well as
outcomes associated with using online communities as a facilitator for value co-creation for SEs.
ABI/Inform, Emerald Management eJournals, and Google Scholar were used to find the most relevant
studies as they cover most of the literature in SE subject area. In addition, we did a target search on
“Social Enterprise Journal” as it focuses mainly on social enterprise sector. We applied a combination
of the terms “social enterprise”, “online communities”, “virtual communities”, “online platforms”,
“value co-creation” and “value co-destruction” in our search with the timeframe limited to 2003-2018.
The results of our search in the literature indicate that previous research has studied the effect and role
of value co-creation as well as networks in SEs context (e.g. Ge et al., 2019, Luisa and Magdalena,
2017), however, they have not investigated the role of online communities to support value co-creation
in SE context. Moreover, while numerous studies have been conducted to explore value co-creation
through online communities in different contexts and disciplines (e.g. Akman et al., 2018, Boon et al.,
2015, Yan et al., 2016, Lai and Chen, 2014, Gebauer et al., 2013, Barrett et al., 2016, Booth and Kellogg,
2015), little is known about the role of online communities as the facilitator of value co-creation in SE
context. Furthermore, during the last years, SEs have used Information and Communication
Technologies like online communities for different purposes such as marketing (Mitchell et al., 2015),
Scaling up (Braund and Schwittay, 2016), human and community development (Gurstein et al., 2009),
and communication amongst social enterprise employees (Keane et al., 2017). However, the main focus
of these cases has not been on value co-creation because based on Vargo and Lusch (2016), value co-
creation is defined as “a process where actors are involved in resource integration and service exchange”,
rather than a dyadic interaction process between two entities (Pera et al., 2016). According to this
definition of value co-creation, two essential elements of value co-creation are the existence of multiple
actors as well as resource integration and exchange of services or resources. Therefore, we aim to fill
this gap in the literature by investigating the role of online communities as the facilitator of value co-
creation in SE context.
2.1 Social Enterprises
There exists a lack of agreement on how SEs can be distinguished from other types of organizations
(Powell, 2015). Although different researchers have provided various definitions for “social enterprise”,
there is no consistent definition for SE in the literature (Gibson et al., 2010, Wry and York, 2017).
However, there are some definitions and characteristics for SEs that have been stated in recent research.
For example, a social enterprise is defined as an organization that attempts to deal with social and/or
environmental missions in the society and achieve financial performance by applying innovative
business models and commercial strategies to create social value (Mair and Marti, 2006, Battilana and
Lee, 2014). SEs do business in a different way in comparison with traditional for-profit enterprises,
charities and Not-for-profit organizations by offering innovative products/services to benefit social
economy and their stakeholders as well as have social as well as environmental impacts (Kay et al.,
2016). SEs have been identified as an important element of modern economy and societies because they
benefit communities by providing different employment and training opportunities for marginalized
people and offering different services to the public (Mason et al., 2007).
SEs like any other organizations have a network of multiple stakeholders including communities,
groups, other enterprises as well as individuals and interact with them in their ecosystem (Hatch, 2018,
Smith et al., 2013). According to previous studies, SEs have a diverse ecosystem with multiple
stakeholders including founders and/or managers, employees, and volunteers as internal stakeholders
and other SEs, Non-profit organizations, government agencies, donors, private and public investors,
beneficiaries, customers, academics, trade unions, political parties, commercial banks, media and the
Abedin and Bidar /Value Co-Creation/Co-Destruction in Social Enterprises
Twenty-Seventh European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2019), Stockholm-Uppsala, Sweden. 4
community as external stakeholders (Rynning, 1995, Martin and Thompson, 2010, Smith et al., 2013,
Mirić and Krstić, 2017, Barraket et al., 2017).
One of the most important proposed features of SEs in the literature is their effort to achieve social and
environmental outcomes as well as financial performance simultaneously (Maibom and Smith, 2016,
Mason and Barraket, 2015, Castellas et al., 2018). This intention leads to a hybrid structure and business
model for SEs combining two or more distinguishable goals (Battilana and Lee, 2014, Doherty et al.,
2014, Castellas et al., 2018) which can cause some challenges for SEs.
2.2 Challenges of SEs
Seeking to achieve their objectives, SEs need to address a number of various challenges. To begin with,
Doherty et al. (2009) explain that SEs tend to serve a combination of social and financial returns at the
same time (Dual Objectives) which can lead to the challenge that success in addressing a social or
environmental problem as part of social missions of SEs can result in failure in financial return, and
contrariwise (Jay, 2013). Furthermore, Smith et al. (2013) state that the existence of different goals,
logics, and values across multiple stakeholders of SEs can lead to diversity management challenge for
SEs. In addition, Bridgstock et al. (2010) state that SEs, due to their limited resources, are not able to
guarantee job security or pay competitive salaries which usually cause human resources management
challenges for SEs like talent management or the loss of workforce (Bornstein, 2007). SEs also struggle
with measuring their social impact because achieving their social mission may not actually be possible
or might be difficult to measure (Lee and Nowell, 2015). It is highly important for SEs to be able to
measure their social impact since it enables them to deal with some of their challenges including:
difficulties with applying for more funding (Martikke, 2008), scaling up their impact (Lyon and
Fernandez, 2012) and legitimacy among stakeholders (Doherty et al., 2014). The other identified
challenges that SEs are facing include difficulties with accessing financial resources, staffing and
governance, representing value as well as market development (Barraket et al., 2016), legal constraints
(Kernot and McNeil, 2011) and limited information regarding the size and importance of the SEs sector
(Barraket et al., 2010).
As online communities are a valuable source of facilitating relationships and collaboration among actors
for value co-creation (Barrett et al., 2016, Füller et al., 2009), among all the challenges that SEs are
facing, we focus specifically on the challenges that we expect can be addressed through online
communication and value co-creation. For example, sharing information and knowledge among
stakeholders can address the challenge of SEs related to the lack of information in this sector (Barraket
and Collyer, 2010) or an effective marketing strategy for introducing SEs` innovative products/services
through online communities can address market development challenge of SEs (Barraket et al., 2016).
2.3 Online Value Co-creation in SEs
Organizations need to collaborate with other organizations and their stakeholders to not only build
competitive advantages (Romero and Molina, 2011) but also to create networks and partnerships which
allow them to access new resources, revenue streams and knowledge as well as reducing their risk
(Hynes, 2009, Romero and Molina, 2011). The interactions between actors in these networks and
partnerships can lead to value co-creation in different aspects including: “co-produced, co-
manufactured, co-developed, co-designed, co-serviced and/or co-processed”(Romero and Molina,
2011). Shaw and Carter (2007) state that it is highly crucial for SEs to be a member of these networks
and partnerships to develop their market, access to information of customers, identify opportunities,
apply for funding sources and gain local support.
Users in online communities interact and collaborate with other like-minded peers with common
interests to achieve different goals (Barrett et al., 2016) such as co-creation and innovation (Füller et al.,
2007), health-related purposes (Erfani et al., 2013a), knowledge sharing (Lai and Chen, 2014, Charband
and Navimipour, 2016), and prompt diffusion of information (Abedin and Babar, 2018). The value
Abedin and Bidar /Value Co-Creation/Co-Destruction in Social Enterprises
Twenty-Seventh European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2019), Stockholm-Uppsala, Sweden. 5
perception toward co-creation is identified as informational, personal-psychological (e.g, Hedonic,
Utilitarian, Financial, Social) and service-related (e.g., Quality, Support) values (Bidar, 2018). Since the
emergence of online communities, because they offer numerous cost-effective and multi-way interaction
opportunities, they have gained a considerable amount of attention as a valuable source of value co-
creation (Nambisan, 2010, Füller et al., 2009). Grover and Kohli (2012) stated that Information
Technology (IT) can help organizations co-create new value through knowledge sharing, increasing
transparency, identifying and integrating resources or capabilities as well as reducing transaction costs
that either organization is not able to do so on its own. This value co-creation for SEs usually happens
on resource-based networks (Füller et al., 2007) that can be facilitated by online communities (Luisa
and Magdalena, 2017). According to Luisa and Magdalena (2017), SEs are willing to use online
communities and networks to access to different information namely: best practices, available
opportunities, marketing, avoiding repetition and the latest news relating to the sector and other SEs.
2.4 Online Value Co-destruction in SEs
While previous research has emphasized on value co-creation through interactions among actors, it is
essential to consider the fact that value might be co-destroyed through relationships between actors (Plé
and Chumpitaz Cáceres, 2010). Value co-destruction has been defined as an interactional process
between actors that causes a decline in at least one of the actors` well-being (tangible or intangible) (Plé
and Chumpitaz Cáceres, 2010, Järvi et al., 2018). According to Vafeas et al. (2016), value co-destruction
can be rooted in resource deficiencies and resource intentional or unintentional misuse by involved
actors, separately or jointly. While information and knowledge exchange in online communities can lead
to value co-creation, value co-destruction can emerge when the integration of resources such as
information (Vafeas et al., 2016), knowledge (Robertson et al., 2014) and skills (Zhang et al., 2018) are
not achieved in online communities. Unsuccessful integration of resources in online interactions can be
caused by different factors such as absence of trust (Vafeas et al., 2016, Järvi et al., 2018), insufficient
communication (Vafeas et al., 2016, Bidar, 2018), lack of transparency (Frau et al., 2018) and low
quality information (Frau et al., 2018, Robertson et al., 2014, Erfani et al., 2013b, 2006, Bidar, 2018) to
name a few.
In line with calls for further research on value co-destruction in different industries and business models
(Prior and Marcos-Cuevas, 2016, Echeverri and Skålén, 2011) as well as in different online platforms
(Frau et al., 2018), we aim to study value co-destruction concept in the context of SE through using
online communities.
3 Conceptualizing Online Value Co-Creation and Co-destruction in Social Enterprise Context
In the entrepreneurship literature, SEs and their ecosystem have been theorized complex and unique
(Wry and York, 2017) which can result in a need for generating new theories or extending existing
theories (Haugh, 2012, Dacin et al., 2010) to apply to SE context. To contribute to this need, we aim to
apply and extend current theories to SE context. Therefore, we developed an initial conceptual
framework (figure 1) based on Social Exchange Theory. Social Exchange Theory (SET) was applied to
understand the process through which actors participate in online value co-creation and co-destruction
(Grissemann and Stokburger-Sauer, 2012). According to SET, the interactions between actors are
formed by a cost-benefit analysis (Emerson, 1976). SET explains that actors engage in value co-creation
process only if the perceived benefits of participation are equal or outweigh the perceived costs
(Grissemann and Stokburger-Sauer, 2012, Kankanhalli et al., 2005). Although previous studies have
applied SET to study online value co-creation behaviors of users in online communities (Chou et al.,
2016, Füller, 2010, Hemetsberger, 2002, Fuller et al., 2004), scant research is available on understanding
online value co-creation behaviors of the users in social enterprise context. Moreover, less attention has
been paid to online value co-destruction behaviors in different contexts which needs to be taken into
account by researchers in this field of study.
Abedin and Bidar /Value Co-Creation/Co-Destruction in Social Enterprises
Twenty-Seventh European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2019), Stockholm-Uppsala, Sweden. 6
In addition, we apply Service-Dominant (S-D) Logic lens in social enterprise context to demonstrate
that value is co-created through the integration of resources and interaction among multiple actors
(Vargo and Lusch, 2004). However, Plé and Chumpitaz Cáceres (2010) criticize the “optimistic” view
of S-D logic and argue that value might be co-destroyed through lack of resource integration in
relationships among actors. We based the theoretical foundation of our study on SET because we aim
to understand online value co-creation and co-destruction behaviors of stakeholders in the ecosystem of
SEs. Moreover, previous researchers have employed SET in information systems (Gefen and Keil,
1998), marketing in business-to-business relational exchange (Lambe et al., 2001), information sharing
(Hall et al., 2010), risk reduction (Molm et al., 2000) and knowledge sharing (Yan et al., 2016) which
are the major identified outcomes in social enterprise sector in our initial conceptual framework.
According to previous research, the most important resources for the co-creation of value through
interactions between actors are knowledge, information, and skills (Lusch et al., 2007, Vargo and Lusch,
2004) which can also be co-destructed during interactions (Echeverri and Skålén, 2011). In the following
initial conceptual framework, we illustrate that based on SET cost-benefit analysis, SEs and other
stakeholders interacting in online communities expect to achieve values in return for the resources they
offer to the online community. In this study, there are two different types of benefits and costs for
stakeholders. In the first type, the positive impacts of value co-creation on the challenges that SEs are
facing and adverse impacts of value co-destruction on the challenges are considered as benefits and costs
of participating in online interactions respectively. In the second type, the outcomes of online value co-
creation and value co-destruction can be considered as benefits and costs respectively. We seek to
understand if stakeholders in the ecosystem of SEs expect to experience the benefits of engagement in
online communities such as information and knowledge sharing, they are likely to participate in online
communities, however, if they expect to face negative outcomes like failure to share resources, they will
not interact through online communities. We demonstrate that there are some factors (Influencers) which
have influence on the behaviors of stakeholders in online communities that can lead to value co-creation
or co-destruction including trust, clear expectations, transparency and quality of information (Vafeas et
al., 2016, Frau et al., 2018, Järvi et al., 2018, Robertson et al., 2014). These environmental factors
influence the formation of value or destruction of value (Bidar et al., 2016) and will lead to the outcome
of the SEs` participation in online communities. The proposed framework can be used as a foundation
and a research guideline for future research emerging from online communities and SE context in
different ways. To begin with, the framework focuses on both online value co-creation and co-
destruction behaviors (positive and negative behaviors of stakeholders) based on social exchange theory
in the context of SEs. It is important to note that one of the objectives of this research in progress paper
is to develop an initial conceptual framework representing how online value co-creation and co-
destruction through online communities in the ecosystem of SEs can impact the challenges of SEs. The
framework can also be used as the basis for the development of a scale for the validation of the use of
online communities by SEs and can be incorporated into the assessment and development of the actual
social business models.
Subsequently, we identified four types of relationships in the following conceptual framework between
(i) influencers and outcomes, (ii) influencers and behaviors, (iii) behaviors and outcomes and (iv) the
consequences of interactions between stakeholders through online communities and SEs` challenges.
These relationships will form the research questions for our future work including 1. “What is the
relationship between influencers and outcomes?” 2. “What is the relationship between influencers and
behaviors?” 3. “What is the relationship between behaviors and outcomes?”, and 4. “What is the
relationship between outcomes of interactions between stakeholders through online communities and
challenges of SEs?” Another critical point to be considered is to understand the nature of these
relationships, whether they are one-way or two-way.
Abedin and Bidar /Value Co-Creation/Co-Destruction in Social Enterprises
Twenty-Seventh European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2019), Stockholm-Uppsala, Sweden. 7
Figure 1. An initial Conceptual Framework for Online Value Co-Creation and Co-destruction
in Social Enterprises.
4 Discussion, Contributions and Future Research
SEs, as organizations with limited resources (Bridgstock et al., 2010), need to interact with their
stakeholders to co-create value (Romero and Molina, 2011). This can lead to generating new knowledge
and accessing new resources as well as new markets (Hynes, 2009). Online communities as a tool for
supporting value co-creation (Füller, 2010, Nambisan, 2010, Nambisan, 2009) can facilitate the
interactions between SEs and their stakeholders. It is crucial for SEs to build a network and interact with
their stakeholders because each stakeholder has their own unique knowledge, skills, capabilities, and
resources which are essential and useful in value co-creation process (Kazadi et al., 2016). However, it
is also important to take value co-destruction into account when SEs interact with their stakeholders
through online communities.
This research in progress paper is one of the first studies that contributes to theoretical knowledge by
extending value co-creation and co-destruction concepts to SE context and also by providing guidelines
for both research and practice on how SEs can deal with their challenges by using online communities
as the facilitator of value co-creation. We specifically seek to address the need to consider value co-
destruction in different contexts and environments provided by (Plé, 2017, Plé and Chumpitaz Cáceres,
2010, Vartiainen and Tuunanen, 2016). We present an initial conceptual framework representing the
Value Co-creation
Social Enterprises` Challenges
Knowledge sharing
Information sharing
Skills sharing
Resource integration
Capability building
Marketing
Trust
Clear Expectations
Transparency
Quality of information
Interactions between stakeholders through online communities
Outcomes
Influencers
Positive Behaviors
of Stakeholders
Value Co-destruction
Negative Behaviors
of Stakeholders
Dual Objectives
Limited information
Accessing to financial resources
Diversity management
Human resource management
Scale up
Legitimacy among stakeholders
Market development
Abedin and Bidar /Value Co-Creation/Co-Destruction in Social Enterprises
Twenty-Seventh European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2019), Stockholm-Uppsala, Sweden. 8
key constructs involved in the interactions between SEs and their stakeholders through online
communities in the ecosystem of SEs and the relationships between these constructs. The practical
implication of this study is identifying the values that SEs can be obtained by participating in the online
value co-creation process and the challenges that SEs are facing in their ecosystem. The proposed initial
conceptual framework will be the basis of future studies where it will be extended to depict the
relationship between online value co-creation and co-destruction behaviors, influencers, and outcomes
as well as the relationship between the consequences of interactions between stakeholders through
online communities and the challenges of SEs. Furthermore, the outcome of future studies can be applied
as the basis of creating an online community as an information system to enable and support SEs
interaction with each other and their stakeholders to co-create value. This can contribute to improving
the performance of SEs in their operations by enhancing the collaboration of SEs and resource
integration among them through online communities. In addition, this study contributes to the body of
knowledge by extending social exchange theory to SE context to understand online value co-creation
and co-destruction behaviors of stakeholders in the ecosystem of SEs.
This research in progress paper has three limitations that will be addressed in future works. First, we did
not conduct an empirical study to validate the presented conceptual framework. Second, the provided
list of the challenges, outcomes of value co-creation and co-destruction as well as influencers may not
be comprehensive and can be further developed during future empirical studies. Third, regarding our
third research question “what challenges do SEs face in their ecosystem that can be addressed through
online value co-creation?” we could only cover a limited list of challenges that SEs are facing, however,
for our future research, an extended list of challenges in addition to an in-depth and validated
understanding of the impact of online value co-creation and co-destruction on the challenges of SEs is
needed through an empirical investigation.
As the next steps, we firstly plan to conduct a case study in the ecosystem of SEs to validate the proposed
initial conceptual framework by investigating the four research questions that we mentioned for our
future studies (refer to section 3, page 6). Secondly, we seek to explore whether the identified
relationships in the initial conceptual framework are one way or two way in nature. Moreover, we aim
to extend the provided lists for the challenges, outcomes of value co-creation and co-destruction as well
as influencers. Furthermore, we plan to extend the proposed initial conceptual framework to include
stakeholders` perspectives to investigate how each stakeholder in the ecosystem of SEs can both benefit
other stakeholders and be benefited through participation in online communities in the ecosystem of
SEs. To do so, we will use stakeholder theory as a fundamental theory that enables organizations to
define, identify and categorize their stakeholders (Fassin, 2009, Laplume et al., 2008) and helps them
understand how managers of a firm behave with stakeholders (Phillips, 2003). Interview will be used as
a method for data collection as little is known about the impact of online communities on SEs` operation,
and also views, ideas, and experiences of stakeholders can be investigated in a specific social enterprise
(Gill et al., 2008). In addition, we will carry out a focus group study since it not only enables participants
from different groups of stakeholders to share their ideas, opinions, experiences, and knowledge in
multi-way and face-to-face communications, but it also helps us validate the findings through the
interviews (Krueger, 2014, Nili et al., 2017). The participants in the interviews and focus group will
include the stakeholders of the SEs that interact with SEs who form the online communities in this
context (refer to section 2.1).
Acknowledgment
We thank Dr. Jason Watson, senior lecturer in Information Systems School at Queensland University
of Technology (QUT), for his cooperation, guidance, and insight that greatly assisted with writing this
paper.
Abedin and Bidar /Value Co-Creation/Co-Destruction in Social Enterprises
Twenty-Seventh European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2019), Stockholm-Uppsala, Sweden. 9
References
Abedin, B. & A. Babar (2018). "Institutional vs. non-institutional use of social media during emergency
response: A case of twitter in 2014 Australian bush fire." Information Systems Frontiers 20 (4),
729-740.
Agostinelli, J. (2010). "The proof is in the pudding: social enterprise in Australia.” fine print 33 (2), 19.
Akman, H., C. Plewa & J. Conduit (2018). "Co-creating value in online innovation communities.”
European Journal of Marketing.
Barraket, J. & N. Collyer (2010). "Mapping social enterprise in Australia: Conceptual debates and their
operational implications.” Third Sector Review 16 (2), 11-28.
Barraket, J., N. Collyer, M. O’connor & H. Anderson (2010). "Finding Australia’s social enterprise
sector.” Report for the Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, Social
Traders, Melbourne.
Barraket, J., H. Douglas, R. Eversole, C. Mason, J. Mcneill & B. Morgan (2017). "Classifying social
enterprise models in Australia.” Social Enterprise Journal 13 (4), 345-361.
Barraket, J., C. Mason & B. Blain (2016). "Finding Australia’s social enterprise sector 2016: Final
report.” Social Traders and Centre for Social Impact Swinburne.
Barrett, M., E. Oborn & W. Orlikowski (2016). "Creating value in online communities: The
sociomaterial configuring of strategy, platform, and stakeholder engagement.” Information
Systems Research 27 (4), 704-723.
Battilana, J. & M. Lee (2014). "Advancing research on hybrid organizing–Insights from the study of
social enterprises.” The Academy of Management Annals 8 (1), 397-441.
Bidar, R. 2018. Service co-creation behaviour in actor-to-actor co-creation systems: From service-
dominant logic to socio-service dominant logic. Queensland University of Technology.
Bidar, R., J. Watson & A. Barros. Literature Review to determine Environmental and Cognitive Factors
underlying User Value Cocreation behaviour. PACIS, 2016 2016. 327-327.
Bidar, R., J. Watson & A. Barros (2017). "Classification of service co-creation systems: An integrative
approach.”
Boon, E., L. Pitt & E. Salehi-Sangari (2015). "Managing information sharing in online communities and
marketplaces.” Business Horizons 58 (3), 347-353.
Booth, S. E. & S. B. Kellogg (2015). "Value creation in online communities for educators.” British
Journal of Educational Technology 46 (4), 684-698.
Bornstein, D. (2007). How to change the world: Social entrepreneurs and the power of new ideas,
Oxford University Press.
Braund, P. & A. Schwittay (2016). "Scaling inclusive digital innovation successfully: the case of
crowdfunding social enterprises.” Innovation and Development 6 (1), 15-29.
Bridgstock, R., F. Lettice, M. F. Özbilgin & A. Tatli (2010). "Diversity management for innovation in
social enterprises in the UK.” Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 22 (6), 557-574.
Castellas, E. I.-P., J. Ormiston & S. Findlay (2018). "Financing social entrepreneurship: The role of
impact investment in shaping social enterprise in Australia.” Social Enterprise Journal.
Charband, Y. & N. J. Navimipour (2016). "Online knowledge sharing mechanisms: a systematic review
of the state of the art literature and recommendations for future research.” Information Systems
Frontiers 18 (6), 1131-1151.
Chou, E.-Y., C.-Y. Lin & H.-C. Huang (2016). "Fairness and devotion go far: Integrating online justice
and value co-creation in virtual communities.” International Journal of Information
Management 36 (1), 60-72.
Dacin, P. A., M. T. Dacin & M. Matear (2010). "Social entrepreneurship: Why we don't need a new
theory and how we move forward from here.” Academy of management perspectives 24 (3), 37-
57.
Doherty, B., G. Foster, J. Meehan & C. Mason (2009). Management for social enterprise, Sage
Publications.
Doherty, B., H. Haugh & F. Lyon (2014). "Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and
research agenda.” International Journal of Management Reviews 16 (4), 417-436.
Abedin and Bidar /Value Co-Creation/Co-Destruction in Social Enterprises
Twenty-Seventh European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2019), Stockholm-Uppsala, Sweden. 10
Echeverri, P. & P. Skålén (2011). "Co-creation and co-destruction: A practice-theory based study of
interactive value formation.” Marketing theory 11 (3), 351-373.
Eggert, A., W. Ulaga, P. Frow & A. Payne (2018). "Conceptualizing and communicating value in
business markets: From value in exchange to value in use.” Industrial Marketing Management
69, 80-90.
Emerson, R. M. (1976). "Social exchange theory.” Annual review of sociology 2 (1), 335-362.
Erfani, S. S., B. Abedin & F. Daneshgar. Investigating the impact of Facebook use on cancer survivors'
psychological well-being. 19th Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2013-
Hyperconnected World: Anything, Anywhere, Anytime, 2013a.
Erfani, S. S., B. Abedin & F. Daneshgar. A qualitative evaluation of communication in Ovarian Cancer
Facebook communities. International Conference on Information Society (i-Society 2013),
2013b. IEEE, 270-272.
Fassin, Y. (2009). "The stakeholder model refined.” Journal of business ethics 84 (1), 113-135.
Frau, M., F. Cabiddu & F. Muscas 2018. When Multiple Actors' Online Interactions Lead to Value Co-
Destruction: An Explorative Case Study. Diverse Methods in Customer Relationship Marketing
and Management. IGI Global.
Füller, J. (2010). "Refining virtual co-creation from a consumer perspective.” California management
review 52 (2), 98-122.
Fuller, J., M. Bartl, H. Ernst & H. Muhlbacher. Community based innovation: a method to utilize the
innovative potential of online communities. 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the, 2004. IEEE, 10 pp.
Füller, J., G. Jawecki & H. Mühlbacher (2007). "Innovation creation by online basketball communities.”
Journal of Business Research 60 (1), 60-71.
Füller, J., H. Mühlbacher, K. Matzler & G. Jawecki (2009). "Consumer empowerment through internet-
based co-creation.” Journal of Management Information Systems 26 (3), 71-102.
Ge, J., H. Xu & M. Pellegrini (2019). "The Effect of Value Co-Creation on Social Enterprise Growth:
Moderating Mechanism of Environment Dynamics.” Sustainability 11 (1), 250.
Gebauer, J., J. Füller & R. Pezzei (2013). "The dark and the bright side of co-creation: Triggers of
member behavior in online innovation communities.” Journal of Business Research 66 (9),
1516-1527.
Gefen, D. & M. Keil (1998). "The impact of developer responsiveness on perceptions of usefulness and
ease of use: an extension of the technology acceptance model.” ACM SIGMIS Database: the
DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems 29 (2), 35-49.
Gibson, K., J. Graham & J. Cameron (2010). "Community enterprises: Imagining and enacting
alternatives to capitalism.” The Ashgate research companion to planning theory: Conceptual
challenges for spatial planning, 291-298.
Gill, P., K. Stewart, E. Treasure & B. Chadwick (2008). "Methods of data collection in qualitative
research: interviews and focus groups.” British dental journal 204 (6), 291.
Gray, M., K. Healy & P. Crofts (2003). "Social enterprise: is it the business of social work?.” Australian
Social Work 56 (2), 141-154.
Grissemann, U. S. & N. E. Stokburger-Sauer (2012). "Customer co-creation of travel services: The role
of company support and customer satisfaction with the co-creation performance.” Tourism
Management 33 (6), 1483-1492.
Grover, V. & R. Kohli (2012). "Cocreating IT value: New capabilities and metrics for multifirm
environments.” MIS Quarterly 36 (1), 225-232.
Gurstein, P., J. O'neill & M. Petersen (2009). "OUTSOURCING TO FURTHER HUMAN
DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF A SOCIAL ENTERPRISE IN CAMBODIA AND LAOS.”
Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 276-286.
Hall, H., G. Widen & L. Paterson (2010). "Not what you know, nor who you know, but who you know
already: examining online information sharing behaviours in a blogging environment through
the lens of social exchange theory.” Libri 60 (2), 117-128.
Hatch, M. J. (2018). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives, Oxford
university press.
Abedin and Bidar /Value Co-Creation/Co-Destruction in Social Enterprises
Twenty-Seventh European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2019), Stockholm-Uppsala, Sweden. 11
Haugh, H. (2012). "The importance of theory in social enterprise research.” Social Enterprise Journal
8 (1), 7-15.
Hemetsberger, A. (2002). "Fostering cooperation on the Internet: social exchange processes in
innovative virtual consumer communities.” ACR North American Advances.
Hynes, B. (2009). "Growing the social enterprise–issues and challenges.” Social Enterprise Journal 5
(2), 114-125.
Järvi, H., A.-K. Kähkönen & H. Torvinen (2018). "When value co-creation fails: Reasons that lead to
value co-destruction.” Scandinavian Journal of Management 34 (1), 63-77.
Jay, J. (2013). "Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations.”
Academy of Management Journal 56 (1), 137-159.
Kankanhalli, A., B. C. Tan & K.-K. Wei (2005). "Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge
repositories: an empirical investigation.” MIS quarterly 29 (1), 113-143.
Kay, A., M. J. Roy & C. Donaldson (2016). "Re-imagining social enterprise.” Social Enterprise Journal
12 (2), 217-234.
Kazadi, K., A. Lievens & D. Mahr (2016). "Stakeholder co-creation during the innovation process:
Identifying capabilities for knowledge creation among multiple stakeholders.” Journal of
Business Research 69 (2), 525-540.
Keane, O., P. V. Hall, N. Schuurman & P. Kingsbury (2017). "Linking online social proximity and
workplace location: social enterprise employees in British Columbia.” Area 49 (4), 468-476.
Kernot, C. & J. Mcneil (2011). Australian stories of social enterprise, University of New South Wales
Sydney.
Krueger, R. A. (2014). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research, Sage publications.
Lai, H.-M. & T. T. Chen (2014). "Knowledge sharing in interest online communities: A comparison of
posters and lurkers.” Computers in Human Behavior 35, 295-306.
Lambe, C. J., C. M. Wittmann & R. E. Spekman (2001). "Social exchange theory and research on
business-to-business relational exchange.” Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing 8 (3), 1-
36.
Laplume, A. O., K. Sonpar & R. A. Litz (2008). "Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves
us.” Journal of management 34 (6), 1152-1189.
Lee, C. & B. Nowell (2015). "A framework for assessing the performance of nonprofit organizations.”
American Journal of Evaluation 36 (3), 299-319.
Luisa, G. M. & R. A. Magdalena (2017). "Assessing the value dimensions of social enterprise
networks.” International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 24 (3), 737-754.
Lusch, R. F., S. L. Vargo & M. O’brien (2007). "Competing through service: Insights from service-
dominant logic.” Journal of retailing 83 (1), 5-18.
Lyon, F. & H. Fernandez (2012). "Strategies for scaling up social enterprise: lessons from early years
providers.” Social Enterprise Journal 8 (1), 63-77.
Maibom, C. & P. Smith (2016). "Symbiosis across institutional logics in a social enterprise.” Social
Enterprise Journal 12 (3), 260-280.
Mair, J. & I. Marti (2006). "Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and
delight.” Journal of world business 41 (1), 36-44.
Martikke, S. (2008). "Commissioning: Possible–Greater Manchester VCS organizations’ experiences in
public sector commissioning.” Manchester, UK: Greater Manchester Council for Voluntary
Organisations.
Martin, F. & M. Thompson (2010). Social Enterprice: Developing Sustainable Businesses, Palgrave
Macmillan.
Mason, C. & J. Barraket (2015). "Understanding social enterprise model development through
discursive interpretations of social enterprise policymaking in Australia (2007-2013).” Social
Enterprise Journal 11 (2), 138-155.
Mason, C., J. Kirkbride & D. Bryde (2007). "From stakeholders to institutions: the changing face of
social enterprise governance theory.” Management decision 45 (2), 284-301.
Abedin and Bidar /Value Co-Creation/Co-Destruction in Social Enterprises
Twenty-Seventh European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2019), Stockholm-Uppsala, Sweden. 12
Mirić, A. A. & G. Krstić (2017). "Social Enterprises in Serbia: Analysis of Key Development Factors,
Major Actors and their Relationships.” Management: Journal of Sustainable Business and
Management Solutions in Emerging Economies 21 (81), 47-57.
Mitchell, A., J. Madill & S. Chreim (2015). "Marketing and social enterprises: implications for social
marketing.” Journal of Social Marketing 5 (4), 285-306.
Molm, L. D., N. Takahashi & G. Peterson (2000). "Risk and trust in social exchange: An experimental
test of a classical proposition.” American Journal of Sociology 105 (5), 1396-1427.
Nambisan, S. (2009). "Platforms for collaboration.” Stanford Social Innovation Review 7 (3), 44-49.
Nambisan, S. 2010. Virtual customer environments: IT-enabled customer co-innovation and value co-
creation. Information technology and product development. Springer.
Nili, A., M. Tate & A. Barros (2017). "A critical analysis of inter-coder reliability methods in
information systems research.”
Pera, R., N. Occhiocupo & J. Clarke (2016). "Motives and resources for value co-creation in a multi-
stakeholder ecosystem: A managerial perspective.” Journal of Business Research 69 (10), 4033-
4041.
Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics, Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Plé, L. (2017). "Why do we need research on value co-destruction?.” Journal of Creating Value 3 (2),
162-169.
Plé, L. & R. Chumpitaz Cáceres (2010). "Not always co-creation: introducing interactional co-
destruction of value in service-dominant logic.” Journal of Services Marketing 24 (6), 430-437.
Powell, M. 2015. Social Enterprise in Adult Day Care: Marketing and Sustainability. University of
York.
Prior, D. D. & J. Marcos-Cuevas (2016). "Value co-destruction in interfirm relationships: The impact
of actor engagement styles.” Marketing Theory 16 (4), 533-552.
Robertson, N., M. Polonsky & L. Mcquilken (2014). "Are my symptoms serious Dr Google? A resource-
based typology of value co-destruction in online self-diagnosis.” Australasian Marketing
Journal (AMJ) 22 (3), 246-256.
Romero, D. & A. Molina (2011). "Collaborative networked organisations and customer communities:
value co-creation and co-innovation in the networking era.” Production Planning & Control 22
(5-6), 447-472.
Rynning, H. (1995). "Commitment and stakeholder thinking.” Understanding Stakeholder Thinking.
Jyväskylä: LSR-Julkaisut, 285-296.
Shaw, E. & S. Carter (2007). "Social entrepreneurship: Theoretical antecedents and empirical analysis
of entrepreneurial processes and outcomes.” Journal of small business and enterprise
development 14 (3), 418-434.
Smith, W. K., M. Gonin & M. L. Besharov (2013). "Managing social-business tensions: A review and
research agenda for social enterprise.” Business Ethics Quarterly 23 (3), 407-442.
Vafeas, M., T. Hughes & T. Hilton (2016). "Antecedents to value diminution: A dyadic perspective.”
Marketing Theory 16 (4), 469-491.
Vargo, S. L. & R. F. Lusch (2004). "Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing.” Journal of
marketing 68 (1), 1-17.
Vargo, S. L. & 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.
Vartiainen, T. & T. Tuunanen. Value co-creation and co-destruction in an is artifact: Contradictions of
geocaching. System Sciences (HICSS), 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on, 2016.
IEEE, 1266-1275.
Wry, T. & J. G. York (2017). "An identity-based approach to social enterprise.” Academy of
Management Review 42 (3), 437-460.
Yan, Z., T. Wang, Y. Chen & H. Zhang (2016). "Knowledge sharing in online health communities: A
social exchange theory perspective.” Information & Management 53 (5), 643-653.
Zhang, T., C. Lu, E. Torres & P.-J. Chen (2018). "Engaging customers in value co-creation or co-
destruction online.” Journal of Services Marketing 32 (1), 57-69.