Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The aim of this conceptual article is to both provide a critical review of research into value co-destruction (VCD) and outline a common conceptual framework in order to better understand and guide future research into VCD and value co-creation (VCC). This review finds that the VCD stream of research has followed two lines of enquiry: one that highlights the role of resources and service systems and another that focuses on practices. It further finds that some prior research has argued that a direct and reciprocal relationship exists between VCD and VCC, captured in the concept of interactive value formation (IVF). A synthesizing IVF framework is outlined which suggests that the alignment and misalignment both within practices and in-between different practices determines IVF, that is, VCD and VCC. The framework further suggests that IVF is both enabled and constrained by resources and service systems.

Keywords

Interactive value formation practices resources review value co-creation value co-destruction

Introduction

A large proportion of research into marketing theory over the last 15 years has revolved around the notion of value. In particular, this discussion has been structured around the concept of value co-creation (VCC), which suggests that marketing activities are accomplished through interactions between providers, users and other actors (see, e.g. Grönroos, 2011; Vargo and Lusch, 2016). Even though this research on value and how it is co-created have contributed to our understanding of marketing theory and practice, it has also been problematized in several ways. One problematization has centred on the fact that the concept of VCC is normatively biased since it presupposes positive processes and outcomes as regards interactions between actors (Echeverri and Skålén, 2011; Plé and Cáceres, 2010).

In order to be able to consider the downside of value too, the concept of value co-destruction (VCD) has been suggested. VCD captures the diminishment of value during interactions between actors (Echeverri and Skålén, 2011; Plé and Cáceres, 2010). Some scholars have argued that destruction denotes irreparable loss, instead preferring terms such as value diminution (Vafeas et al., 2016) and failure during VCC (Skålén et al., 2015). Since these alternative terms acknowledge that VCD is an interactional process that connotes a change of value in a negative direction, we argue that the differences in terminology largely concern semantics. Similarly to how value creation denotes an increase in value, value destruction denotes a decrease in value. Therefore, we keep to the notion of VCD in this article while taking into consideration research that uses alternative terminology when referring to interactions that cause changes of value in a negative direction.

VCD has become a research stream in its own right (Cabiddu et al., 2019) but a research stream that is less well known than VCC research. This article reviews the current research into VCD and finds that VCD is a vibrant field of research, but also one that is quite fragmented, hindering the development of research in the field. In order to promote research into VCD, the aim of this article is to provide a critical review of the existing VCD research, in addition to outlining a common conceptual framework, so as to better understand and guide future research into VCD and VCC.

This article makes a contribution by reviewing the research into VCD. A key finding of our review is that prior research has highlighted the role of either resources and service systems (Plé and Cáceres, 2010; Smith, 2013) or practices (Echeverri and Skålén, 2011; Skålén et al., 2015), with a few studies combining these approaches (Caridá et al., 2019; Makkonen and Olkkonen, 2017) with the intention of understanding VCD. Building on its review of existing research, this article also makes a contribution by developing a synthesizing framework to guide future research. In particular, this framework builds on prior research suggesting that a direct and reciprocal relationship exists between VCC and VCD, captured in the concept of interactive value formation (IVF), which constitutes a neutral point of departure when outlining marketing theory (Echeverri and Skålén, 2011; Makkonen and Olkkonen, 2017). Elaborating on prior research, our framework suggests that IVF is a function of the alignment and misalignment of elements, both within practices and in-between practices, with alignment being associated with VCC and misalignment with VCD. Our framework further suggests that IVF is both enabled and constrained by resources and service systems.

The article is structured as follows. After a short section on methodology, we present our review of the existing VCD research. This is followed by a section that presents the IVF framework. Taking its point of departure in the IVF framework, the final section concludes the article by both summarizing the contributions made and offering suggestions for future research.

Methodology

In conducting our review of the VCD literature, we followed the integrative literature review methodology (Snyder, 2019). The integrative review is suitable when the aim is to provide an overview of a body of literature that includes an examination of a phenomenon’s main ideas and relationships. It is also suitable when the aim is to assess, critique and synthesize the literature on a given topic in a way that enables new theoretical frameworks and perspectives to emerge (Torraco, 2005). Hence, the integrative review resonated with the aim of the present article.

The review was limited to articles published in academic journals. Using the Business Source Premier database, a search was conducted in May 2019 using the terms ‘Co-destruction of value’ and ‘Value co-destruction’ in ‘all text’. The VCD literature is a problematization of the service-dominant (S-D) logic, with the first article on the S-D logic being published in 2004. Therefore, the search window was limited to 1999–2018, covering all the S-D logic-related articles dealing with VCD by a wide margin.

The search resulted in a corpus of 56 articles. Independently of each other, we read the abstracts of all these articles to identify all the occurrences of the notion of ‘co-destruction’ in the main text in order to gain an overview of which articles focused on VCD. Articles not discussing co-destruction in their abstracts, or only relating to the concept in passing in the main body of text, were deleted from the corpus. The first author identified 28 articles focusing on VCD, while the second identified 32; in total, 34 different articles were identified, meaning that the overlap between the articles we had identified was extensive.

We read all 34 articles independently and in detail in order to create an overview of their content and to decide which ones to include in the review or not. Empirical, methodological and conceptual papers making an independent contribution to the research on VCD, and/or using the notion of VCD in their analysis to illuminate their findings, were included in the review. Articles not meeting these inclusion criteria were not included. After this process, 24 articles remained.

During our detailed reading of the 24 articles, we identified 15 additional articles on VCD which were used as references in the 24 articles but had not been identified during the initial search in the Business Source Premier database. These 15 articles were also read independently by us using the same inclusion/exclusion criteria described above. Ten of these were included in the review, resulting in a final corpus of 34 articles, which are described in Table 1.

Table 1.

Overview of VCD research.

The resource and service systems approach
Publication	Theoretical base	Method and context	Definitions of VCD	Forms/types/typologies	Theoretical relations
Plé and Cáceres (2010)	Resource-based theory, S-D logic and service systems	Conceptual	An interactional process between service systems that results in a decline in the well-being of at least one of the systems.	Misuse of the service systems’ own resources; misuse of the other service systems’ resources.	VCD results from the accidental or intentional misuse of resources.
Crowther and Donland (2011)	S-D logic	Interviews. Events	Accidental misuse of resources during interactions.	Incongruent expectations on part of event participants drive VCD.	Conceptualizes value creation spaces as interaction between VCC and VCD.
Worthington and Durkin (2012)	Behavioural economics, denial theory, organization and cultural theory	Interviews. Banking	Opposite of VCC.	A conceptual matrix of VCC/VCD.	VCD as an effect of organizations having a trappings marketing orientation and customers having a reckless debt orientation.
Smith (2013)	Resource ecology, conservation of resources, S-D logic and service systems	Interviews. Shopping malls (customers)	Resource loss during interaction between service systems that results in the decline in the well-being of at least one of the systems.	Resources that drive VCD: material, leisure, money, knowledge, self-efficacy, hope, energy, esteem, support, time, people, technology, organization and information.	Expectations drive VCD (value diminution).
Robertson et al. (2014)	Studies of online self-diagnosis	Conceptual study of online self-diagnosis	Misuse of resources in service systems’ resource integration.	A typology of which resources drive VCD in the context of online self-diagnosis.	VCD is explained by deficiencies in or misuse of a set of consumer or provider resources/actions.
Stieler et al. (2014)	S-D logic	Interviews. Football fans	Misuse of resources in resource integration.	VCD emerges during interactions between groups of actors. VCD for one actor may be VCC for another and vice versa.	Expectations of engaged actors explain VCD (as outcome).
Kashif and Zarkada (2015)	Customer misbehaviour	Interviews. Banking	Links VCD and customer misbehaviour.	Strategies adopted by employees to counter customer misbehaviour.	Consciousness and knowledge regarding roles of both parties determine VCD.
Razmdoost and Mills (2016)	Studies of project management and S-D logic	Case study. Education project (B2B)	Negative interactions.	Highlighting of VCD during longer business relationships.	VCC/VCD is created by compromises between actors, as triggered by congruent/incongruent project characteristics.
Tsiotsou (2016)	S-D logic and consumer culture theory	Conceptual study of sports marketing	Introduces the notion of co-destruction of context.	Co-construction/co-destruction of context is one of the five factors explaining sport experiences.	Co-destruction of context is explained by fans not acting in accordance with the identities suggested by the context.
Plé (2016)	S-D logic	Conceptual	Decline in value during interactions through resource integration.	Twelve categories of customer resources are integrated by service employees during VCD and VCC.	Intentional and accidental non-integration and misintegration of resources result in VCD.
Vafeas et al. (2016)	S-D logic	Interviews. Advertising/design agencies and clients (B2B)	Preference for the notion of value diminution rather than VCD. Value diminution is suboptimal value realization as perceived by actors.	Antecedents: absence of trust, inadequate communication, power/dependence imbalance, inadequate coordination and inadequate human capital.	VCD is caused by resource deficiencies in, or resource misuse by, one or both interacting parties.
Williams et al. (2016)	Studies of VCD, co-production, public values and S-D logic	Documents. Public housing and neighbourhood watch	Misuse of resources during interactions between service systems resulting in negative consequences.	Value co-contamination is a form of VCD concerning public values.	Co-contamination of public values is explained by the misuse of resources and inequitable power relationships.
Chowdhury et al. (2016)	S-D logic and industrial networks	Interviews and documents. Advertising agencies	Intentional or accidental misuse of resources.	Power plays, role conflicts/ambiguity and sharing of responsibilities cause VCD.	Linking of power plays and communication styles.
Daunt and Harris (2017)	S-D logic, resource-theory and relationship theory	Survey of consumers. Showrooming	A decline in the well-being of interacting service system actors.	VCD/VCC behaviours may occur in a simultaneous, concurrent and iterative fashion.	Consumer, channel and product characteristics are associated with online VCD/VCC.
Farquhar and Robson (2017)	S-D logic, demarketing, service systems	Conceptual	Misusing or misunderstanding how to integrate operant resources.	Value co-destruction is a part of demarketing.	Unprofitable customers destroy value beyond the immediate control of firms.
Kantanen (2017)	Organizational learning	Case study, video. Consulting (B2B)	Collaborative destruction of value.	Illustration of the recovery of value co-formation using a case.	VCD may result from apparently positive behaviour.
Zainuddin et al. (2017)	S-D logic, social marketing and self-determination theory	Netnography, Twitter posts. Physical and mental health of consumers	Decline in well-being.	VCD is driven by physical and mental discomfort, time and effort, encouragement, support and interaction.	Identification of functional, emotional, epistemic, community and social value.
Plé (2017)	S-D logic and service systems	Conceptual	A decline in the well-being of at least one of the interacting actors.	There is an iterative relationship between VCD and VCC in ‘value processes’.	Value processes are explained by resource (mis-)integration.
Quach and Thaichon (2017)	S-D logic and social resource theory	Interviews. Online luxury brands customers	VCC/VCD revolves around a set of resources. There is an iterative relationship between VCD and VCC.	Four types of resources identified: love, status, information and services.	Status has a role in VCD.
Čaić et al. (2018)	S-D logic and value networks	Interviews and generative card activities. Elderly care	Diminished well-being for at least some of the actors in the value network.	An automated actor (robot) has three VCD roles: replacement, intruder and deactivator.	VCD may be balanced by VCC.
Hasche and Linton (2018)	Business relationships	Interviews and documents. Medtech	A decline in the well-being of interacting service system actors.	Seven episodes of VCD are distinguished.	Collaborations vary between VCC and VCD over time.
Järvi et al. (2018)	S-D logic and public value.	Interviews. Multiple case studies	A decline in the well-being of interacting service system actors.	Antecedents of VCD: absence of information, insufficient level of trust, mistakes, inability to serve, inability to change, absence of clear expectations, customer misbehaviour and blaming.	VCD is realized before, during and after collaboration.
Smyth et al. (2018)	S-D logic and project management theory	Case study based on documents. Nuclear power stations	Diminishment of value.	VCD (during projects) is explained by institutional change, discontinuity of interactions, social distance of decision makers, delays and cost escalation.	Relationship found between decision-making and VCD.
Luo et al. (2019)	S-D logic and service quality	Surveys. Tourism and hospitality	VCD is an interactional process whereby misbehaviours of other customers lead to the depletion of value.	Previous customers are more sensitive to VCD/VCC.	Prior experience of moderate VCD (‘co-crestruction’) interactions and their effect on service quality.

Table 1.

(continued)

The practice approach
Publication	Theoretical base	Method and context	Definitions of VCD	Forms/types/typologies	Theoretical relations
Echeverri and Skålén (2011)	Practice theory, S-D logic and studies of value in marketing	Interviews and observations. Public transport encounters	Collaborative diminishment of value by providers and customers. IVF designates the iteration between VCC and VCD.	Reinforcing VCC; recovery value co-formation; reductive value co-formation; and reinforcing VCD.	VCC/VCD ensued when interacting parties enacted elements of practices congruently/incongruently.
Skålén et al. (2015)	Practice theory, S-D logic and brand community research.	Interviews and netnography. Brand community	Preference for the notion of failure during value co-creation rather than VCD. Suggestion that VCD denotes a permanent decline in well-being.	Three realignment strategies – compliance, interpretation and orientation – are used by actors to address VCD.	Alignment/misalignment during enactments of practice elements explains VCC and VCD.
Camilleri and Neuhofer (2017)	Practice theory and S-D logic	Online content analysis. Air BnB	Negative interactions. Value formation includes both negative and positive interactions.	Identification of six value formation practices.	Four types of value formation relate to the six value formation practices.
Echeverri and Salomonson (2017a)	Practice-theory and service encounters	Interviews. Public transport (travellers)	Formed by the inherent characteristics of practices.	Identification of six demeanour practices (including 20 sub-activities) and interactional sequences.	VCC/VCD is explained by alignment/misalignment within and between elements of practices.
Echeverri and Salomonson (2017b)	Studies of VCC and VCD	Interviews and observations. Public transport	Diminishment of value.	Five interaction phases and four classes of social outcomes continuously produced during micro-level interaction.	VCD/VCC is driven by four turn-taking patterns: simple, intensive, substantial and elaborated.

Table 1.

(continued)

The combined approach
Publication	Theoretical base	Method and context	Definitions of VCD	Forms/types/typologies	Theoretical relations
Becker et al. (2015)	Practice theory, S-D logic and motivation theory	Video, self-reflection diaries. Consulting (B2B)	VCC and VCD occur during direct interactions.	Several approach-avoidance motivation types. Dynamic between VCC and VCD.	Motivation of actors explains both VCC and VCD. Change from VCD to VCC is due to work content and working methods.
Prior and Marcos-Cuevas (2016)	S-D logic and service ecosystems	Focus group interviews, documents. Aerospace (B2B)	Decline in well-being during interactions through misuse of resources.	VCD is materialized through nine customer engagement styles. List of four normalizing VCD processes.	VCD is a function of actors’ perceived net deficit and goal prevention.
Makkonen and Olkkonen (2017)	S-D logic, structuration theory, practice theory (Bourdieu) and institutional theory	Interviews. Museum and a media company (B2B)	Actors are worse off. IVF emerges from the relationship between resource integration and service systems.	Differentiation between three types of IVF: VCC, value no-creation and VCD.	A framework of IVF during interorganizational relationships.
Hiler et al. (2018)	S-D logic and motive disposition theory	Video and interviews. Online gaming (consumers)	Diminishment of value during interactions.	Four roles – hardcore, dedicated, skilled and casual. Five value outcomes: high value fit, low value fit, value misfit, lopsided value and diluted value proposition.	Co-competition (collaboration with competing groups of consumers) may lead to negative value outcomes, a result of misaligned abilities and proclivities.
Cabiddu et al. (2019)	Practice theory and S-D logic	Interviews and observations. Multiple cases (B2B)	Unintentional decline in well-being as a result of multiple actors’ resource integration.	A typology of VCD and VCC practices. Identification of VCD practice patterns.	Value is formed in a value variation space determined by access to and exploitation of capital.
Caridà et al. (2019)	Practice theory and S-D logic	Virtual brand communities	Misalignment of procedures, understandings and engagement.	Three phases of matching, resourcing (operating) and valuing (assessment)	Value creation and value destruction are explained by the processes of matching and resourcing.

VCD: value co-destruction; VCC: value co-creation; S-D: service-dominant; IVF: interactive value formation.

Our next step was to jointly analyse the 34 articles based on a predefined set of criteria (see Table 1) grounded in the aim of this article, that is, to achieve a synthesized conceptualization of VCD. For each article, we first identified major theoretical bases in order to grasp the theoretical assumptions and any affinities with previous conceptualizations. We found a common pattern in the form of two broad research streams in the VCD literature, one of which focused on resources and service systems and the other on practices. We also identified a few more recent contributions drawing on both approaches. The pattern we found contributed towards the structure of the literature review section and towards synthesizing the field. It is also reflected in the IVF framework, outlined towards the end of this article.

The next step in our review was identifying how each article defined the concept of VCD and whether or not this was related to the notion of VCC. This allowed us to conclude whether a specific article relied on previous definitions or provided conceptual advancements. Most of the articles draw on earlier definitions. Further, we also identified major typologies, types or forms of VCD/VCC, as well as theoretical relations between conceptual elements or factors. The method and context of the empirical papers was also noted. All these criteria are used to construct Table 1 (see the different columns). Taken together, our integrative review of the VCD literature enabled us to present prior research in a structured manner and to construct a synthesizing framework.

Review of the VCD literature

This section reports on our review of VCD research (see Table 1, for an overview). The section is structured by the finding, from our review, that prior research may be divided into two key research streams: the resource and service systems approach and the practice approach. In addition, we also account for the contributions attempting to combine these approaches. We open the section by presenting the most commonly used definitions of VCD.

Definitions of VCD

Our review suggests that the bulk of previous research on VCD draws on articles by Plé and Cáceres (2010) and by Echeverri and Skålén (2011) when conceptualizing and defining VCD. These two articles were written independently of each other, with the work of Plé and Cáceres (2010) being published during the final revision process of the work of Echeverri and Skålén (2011). These articles are also the most-cited works on VCD, with Echeverri and Skålén (2011) garnering 661 citations and Plé and Cáceres (2010) garnering 519 citations, according to Google Scholar as of 15 May 2020.¹

Plé and Cáceres (2010: 431) define VCD as ‘…an interactional process between service systems that results in a decline in at least one of the systems’ well-being (which, given the nature of a service system, can be individual or organizational)’. Echeverri and Skålén (2011) define VCD as ‘…the collaborative destruction, or diminishment, of value by providers and customers’ (p. 355), in doing so ‘…capturing the downside of interactive value formation’ (p. 352). Both these definitions indicate that interaction is a process, that is, the mutual activities and doings of individuals or other actors, and key to understanding VCD. The decline or diminishment of value, or well-being, is viewed as an outcome of this process. These definitions also suggest that value, or well-being, is not a one-sided phenomenon – the decline, destruction or diminishment of value can be realized by any of the interacting parties, a notion that has subsequently been highlighted in VCD research (Daunt and Harris, 2014). Hence, these definitions illuminate what it is that sets research on VCD apart from adjacent streams of research, for example, research on customer misbehaviour (Kashif and Zarkada, 2015), customer complaints (Tronvoll, 2011) and the service encounter (Oliver, 2006). These streams of research have focused on the role of one type of actor (e.g. customers or employees) at a time and predominantly on positive value formation. When negative value formation is taken into account, Prior and Marcos-Cuevas (2016: 534) argue that these streams focus on value destruction rather than VCD, suggesting that ‘value co-destruction is interactional and value destruction is unilateral’. Järvi et al. (2018) make a similar distinction between VCD and value destruction. Hence, research on VCD focuses on negative value formation during interactions involving two or more actors (e.g. customer–employee dyads or wider service system interactions).

While similar, there are also important differences between the definitions suggested by Plé and Cáceres (2010) and by Echeverri and Skålén (2011). Plé and Cáceres (2010) argue that interactions take place within or between service systems and focus solely on VCD. Echeverri and Skålén (2011), on the other hand, focus on dyadic interactions between providers and customers, emphasizing that VCD needs to be understood in relation to VCC as captured by the concept of IVF. We argue that these differences stem from the fact that Plé and Cáceres (2010) aim to integrate the notion of VCD with the S-D logic (Vargo and Lusch, 2016). Echeverri and Skålén (2011) take their point of departure in the S-D logic but aim to develop an alternative approach to understanding value that is both structured around the notion of IVF and based on practice theory. Next, we present our review of the research streams that have emerged from these differences.

The resource and service systems approach to VCD

The direct inspiration attributable to the S-D logic in the work of Plé and Cáceres (2010) is evident in two ways: First, these researchers suggest that the interactions that diminish well-being take place within or between service systems. Service systems or service ecosystems (we use these terms interchangeably in this article) are a key feature of the S-D logic (Vargo and Lusch, 2016), suggesting that value is co-created during interactions between multiple linked actors who share common goals, and not just between providers and customers. Extant empirical research (see, e.g. Farquhar and Robson, 2017; Plé, 2016; Smith, 2013; Stieler et al., 2014; Tsiotsou, 2016; see also Table 1) suggests that VCD takes place during other interactions than those occurring between providers and customers, thus corroborating the service systems view of Plé and Cáceres (2010).

Second, the influence of the S-D logic on the work of Plé and Cáceres (2010) is also evident in their usage of the S-D logic term resource integration to specify their definition of VCD, presented above. Resource integration suggests that value is co-created by actors integrating tangible/operand and intangible/operant resources (Vargo and Lusch, 2016). Plé and Cáceres (2010) contend that VCD stems from the misuse of resources. They argue that, ‘In this context, the term “misuse” refers to a failure to integrate and/or apply resources in a manner that is appropriate and expected by the other service system’ (Plé and Cáceres, 2010: 434, see also Luo et al., 2019). They also make a distinction between the intended and unintended misuse of resources, arguing that unintended misuse is the most common form of VCD, something that subsequent empirical research supports (see, e.g. Baker and Kim, 2019; Robertson et al., 2014; Stieler et al., 2014; Vafeas et al., 2016).

Understanding VCD in terms of being caused by the misuse of resources has informed studies of VCD in many of the papers reviewed. For example, Smith (2013) studies how the loss of resources, as regards material, esteem, time and sociality, leads to misuse and negative well-being. She also focuses on how the customers studied attempt to address misuse and regain resources through coping behaviour. Another example here is the work of Prior and Marcos-Cuevas (2016), which revealed two major ways in which actors perceived VCD: (1) as the net deficit between the perceived benefits and costs of collaboration and (2) as goal prevention, which concerns actors’ expected desires not materializing through collaboration. Drawing on Plé and Cáceres (2010), they suggest that net deficit stems from resource misuse, while goal prevention stems from resource misalignment, among other things. In addition, Vafeas et al. (2016) introduce the concept of value diminution, a term they find preferable to VCD, by drawing on the notion of the misuse of resources. They define value diminution as ‘…the perceived suboptimal value realization that occurs as a consequence of resource deficiencies in, or resource misuse by, one or more interacting actors’ (Vafeas et al., 2016: 470, emphasis added). As shown above, this strand of resource-oriented VCD research mainly addresses the organizational and system conditions driving VCD.

While research into resource misuse has contributed to our understanding of VCD, it offers little in the way of revealing the dynamic social mechanisms inherent in the collaborative and interactive nature of VCD. In addition, the concept of ‘resource misuse’ is generic and potentially covers all types of resources associated with economic activity, which further impedes gaining an in-depth understanding of VCD. Some research has taken this lack of specificity into account, identifying a wide range of resources linked both to VCD/VCC and to the antecedents of VCD/VCC (see, e.g. Becker et al., 2015; Hiler et al., 2018; Järvi et al., 2018; Smith, 2013; Zainuddin et al., 2017). Examples of resources driving VCD, according to this research, include lack of motivation, the energization of behaviour and power balance (Becker et al., 2015), while examples of antecedents include conflicts, goal incongruence, misdirected groupthink, the absence of trust and inadequate coordination (Vafeas et al., 2016). Whether these aspects precede actual value formation or form part of it has not always been clearly articulated. Further, some of the addressed resources and antecedents are understood as conditions/capacities and others as activities, adding some vagueness. What is clear, however, is that this strand of research has been providing more and more empirical insights into the specificities and antecedents that explain VCD as it has evolved.

To reach an in-depth understanding of VCD/VCC as a collaborative and interactive phenomenon, we need to both distinguish between and to be more detailed about ‘which’ resources are available and ‘how’ different resource configurations are either activated or ‘becoming’ (Zimmerman, 1951), as suggested by several S-D logic scholars (Edvardsson et al., 2014; Pels et al., 2009; Peters, 2019). Cabiddu et al. (2019) address these issues by distinguishing between resource integration (indicating which resources are related) and social interaction (how humans, in their activities, use given resources). This, we argue, is a way forward in articulating an integrated conceptualization of VCD/VCC, being clearer as regards how to theoretically relate resources, activities (or practices), antecedents and outcomes during VCD/VCC.

One way of further understanding VCC/VCD is drawing on institutional theory, something that has been done by S-D logic and service ecosystems scholars (see, e.g. Vargo and Lusch, 2016). The key argument of institutional theory is that people’s actions are coordinated by the institutions, or social structures, of the context they are acting in (Edvardsson et al., 2011). According to Scott (2013), institutions are to varying degrees made up of three pillars: that is, the normative pillar, which has to do with values and norms, the regulative pillar, which concerns formal rules and laws, and the cultural-cognitive pillar, which has to do with meanings and shared symbols. Thus far, institutional theory has scarcely been used in studies of VCD. According to our review, the two exceptions to this are Williams et al. (2016), who allude to institutional theory in studying how shared values in the public sector are co-contaminated through the misuse of resources, and Makkonen and Olkkonen (2017), who use institutional theory to show how VCD is coordinated by the institutional environment. To some extent, Prior and Marcos-Cuevas (2016) and Smyth et al. (2018) also draw on institutional theory, with the former focusing on the role of normalizing processes during VCD in service systems and the latter discussing the link between VCD and institutional change. All of these studies suggest that institutions coordinate actors’ VCD actions, but not in a deterministic fashion. Rather, the studies suggest that actors are to a certain degree independent of institutions, with some holding that actors can change institutions. This research shows that it is highly relevant to zoom out from the concrete resources and to include institutions and their coordinating role in explaining VCD.

In sum, the resource and service systems approach to VCD has focused on identifying resources and antecedents, as well as on how the integration of resources in service systems drives resource misuse. Some research, albeit scarce, has attended to the role of institutions in VCD.

The practice approach to VCD

Rather than building on the S-D logic, and its key notions of resources and service systems, Echeverri and Skålén (2011) adopted a practice theory approach to conceptualizing and analysing VCD. Nicolini (2011) argues that practice theory is not a uniform theory but a family of different theoretical perspectives devoted to understanding the practices designating the frameworks of organized actions which people enact in order to carry out concrete actions, for example, engaging in interactions (Reckwitz, 2002; Schatzki, 2019). Hence, practices have a dual meaning. They are frameworks for action as well as the very actions carried out when people enact these frameworks. The seminar is a good example of a practice. It is an action framework for carrying out a particular educational activity that actors enact in order to carry out concrete seminars. Taking their cue from the work of Schau et al. (2009), on the value creation practices of brand communities, Echeverri and Skålén (2011), and subsequent studies adopting a practice approach to VCD, have particularly drawn on the practice theory of Schatzki (1996, 2002, 2019). Consequently, the position adopted by this research is that practices consist of three elements: procedures (i.e. rules), understandings (i.e. practical know-how) and engagements (i.e. goals, commitments and motivations) (Schatzki, 1996; Schau et al., 2009).

To understand VCD from a practice theory perspective, Echeverri and Skålén (2011) conducted an empirical study of interactions between bus/tram drivers and passengers. They found that these parties enacted five key practices when interacting – charging, helping, informing, greeting and delivering. They further found that VCC is realized when the interacting parties enact the elements of these practices congruently and that VCD is realized in cases where the interacting parties enact these elements incongruently (see also Razmdoost and Mills, 2016). Based on this analysis, they outlined the notion of IVF, which denotes a direct reciprocal relationship between VCD and VCC. Specifically, they suggest that ‘…interactive value formation – value co-creation as well as value co-destruction – derives from providers and customers drawing on congruent (in the case of value co-creation) and incongruent (in the case of value co-destruction) elements of practices’ (Echeverri and Skålén, 2011: 368). Several other studies support the argument that a reciprocal relationship exists between VCC and VCD (Crowther and Donland, 2011; Daunt and Harris, 2017; Hasche and Linton, 2018; Quach and Thaichon, 2017). Interestingly, Crowther and Donland (2011: 1448) introduce the notion of ‘value creation spaces’, illuminating how actors shift between VCC and VCD. Hence, the practice approach has made important contributions to understanding value in marketing theory by focusing on the reciprocal relationship between VCD and VCC, as captured by the notion of IVF and by means of highlighting the fact that the congruence/incongruence of elements of practices contributes to the existence of VCD and VCC.

In the work of Echeverri and Skålén (2011), a distinction was made between four typical types of value formation, each associated with one role that practitioners can assume. These types of value formation and roles are reinforcing VCC (value co-creator), recovery value co-formation (value co-recoverer), reductive value co-formation (value co-reducer) and reinforcing VCD (value co-destroyer). This typology is corroborated by Worthington and Durkin (2012) and drawn on by both Kantanen (2017) and Smith (2013) in their empirical research. Widening the research scope, Smith (2013) makes an important contribution by zooming out from dual interactions between providers and customers to study IVF in a service system setting.

The practice theory informed analysis of IVF and VCD has been further elaborated on in several other studies (see, e.g. Becker et al., 2015; Camilleri and Neuhofer, 2017; Skålén et al., 2015; Sorensen and Drennan, 2017 and Table 1). In line with Echeverri and Skålén (2011), Skålén et al. (2015) found that the enactment of elements of practices determines IVF, arguing that aligned enactments further VCC while misaligned enactments create VCD. Skålén et al. (2015) argue that the conceptual pair alignment/misalignment is more established in marketing theory than congruency/incongruency. Other studies also use the notion of alignment and/or misalignment, rather than the congruent/incongruent enactment of practice elements, to understand VCC and VCD (Crowther and Donland, 2011; Hiler et al., 2018; Prior and Marcos-Cuevas, 2016). Echeverri and Salomonsson (2017a) made an important contribution to this research, on the alignment and misalignment of practices, by showing that VCC and VCD are determined by alignment/misalignment not only within the same elements of practices but also in-between different elements of practices. This argument is supported by practice theory research (Shove et al., 2012). In addition, Skålén et al. (2015) found that the employees and consumers they studied used three realignment strategies to turn VCD into VCC. Specifically, they found that the realignment strategies regarding compliance with rules, shared interpretations of actions and goal orientation were used to address misalignments during the enactment of procedures, understandings and engagements. Hence, there is a parallel between realignment strategies and Smith’s (2013) notion that actors attempt to address resource loss by regaining resources.

In another paper, Cabiddu et al. (2019) identified a range of practices, some of which are exclusively associated with either VCC or VCD, as well as others which are associated with both VCD and VCC. Drawing on Bourdieu’s practice theory (see, e.g. Bourdieu, 1984), they found that VCD resulted when practices both denied access to and disabled the exploitation of different types of capital. Correspondingly, VCC resulted when practices provided such access and exploitation. Based on their analysis, they propose the notion of the value variation space, which suggests that value is formed in a space determined by the two capital variation factors, that is, access to and exploiting capital. Hence, they emphasize that value is formed in a space in-between VCD and VCC, in a similar way to other studies (Crowther and Donland, 2011; Echeverri and Skålén, 2011; Skålén et al., 2015).

To conclude, the practice-theory informed approach initially focused on transcending the VCD/VCC dichotomy, advancing IVF as a notion by attending to the congruency and incongruency of elements of practices. Later contributions have found that alignment/misalignment within and in-between practices accounts for IVF and that IVF takes place within a space.

The combined approach

While practice-theory-informed studies have contributed to our understanding of IVF, VCD and VCC, these primarily draw our attention to the direct interaction between customers and providers, thus neglecting the role of other service system actors, as emphasized by the resource and service systems approach to VCD. This neglect is addressed by Makkonen and Olkkonen (2017), who draw on the resource and service systems research as well as the practice-theory-informed research into VCD. Informed by Giddens’ (1984) version of practice theory, in which institutions or social structures are a key feature, Makkonen and Olkkonen outline a framework of IVF. This framework suggests that a service system is made up of institutions coordinating actors’ enactment of practices. Specifically, the framework shows that both the enactment of practices and the coordinating role of the institutions within a service system inform the perceptions, interpretations and actions that individuals draw on when integrating resources and engaging in IVF. Hence, Makkonen and Olkkonen’s (2017) conceptualization of IVF is both similar to and different from what was originally offered by Echeverri and Skålén (2011): similar in that it emphasizes the enactment of practices and different in that it emphasizes how service systems and institutions coordinate the actions of multiple types of actors.

Another example of research combining the resource and service systems approach with the practice approach to VCD is the work of Caridà et al. (2019), who explore both resource integration as an embedded process and the value output of resource integration processes. These scholars argue that resource integration is not a fuzzy mechanism to be found somewhere in value formation, or a single phase, as argued by Akaka et al. (2012), but a central process that takes place in an IVF system and is constituted by resources and practices. They suggest that resource integration consists of three processes: (1) ‘matching’ the available basic operant resources, (2) ‘resourcing’ or operating on the available resources and (3) ‘valuing’ the outcome in terms of value destruction or value creation. Central to their argument is resource integration being determined by the alignment and misalignment of the elements of practices – procedures, understandings and engagements – enacted during a matching, resourcing and valuing process.

While recent efforts to combine the practice approach with the resource and service systems approach to VCD represent fruitful attempts at conceptually cross-fertilizing prior research, this research does not describe exactly the relationship between practices and resources. How elements of practices and resource integration are related during matching and resourcing (Caridà et al., 2019) and the differences, similarities and overlaps between resources and practices (Cabiddu et al., 2019) is particularly unclear. Importantly, there is no discussion about how resources and practices are combined in action, or how resources and practices jointly drive IVF, VCC and VCD. Korkman and Araujo (2019) argue that practices are the sites where resource integration takes place, indicating a dialectic relationship between resources and practices. An IVF framework needs to build on these insights.

A synthesizing IVF framework

Based on our review and discussion of prior research, we present a synthesizing framework (see Figure 1) that integrates and elaborates upon both the practice approach and the resource and service systems approach to VCD.

Figure 1.

Interactive value formation framework.

The core concept of our framework is IVF (Cabiddu et al., 2019; Crowther and Donland, 2011; Echeverri and Skålén, 2011; Makkonen and Olkkonen, 2017) rather than VCD. There is strong evidence that a reciprocal relationship exists between VCC and VCD, a relationship which is captured by both the IVF concept and our framework (Crowther and Donland, 2011; Daunt and Harris, 2017; Hasche and Linton, 2018, Quach and Thaichon, 2017). Everyday experiences also suggest that interactions may take either a positive or a negative direction. Focusing on IVF, rather than just on VCD, thus broadens the scope of the framework as it may be drawn on to guide research into all types of interactions in a business context.

Building on prior research, outlining notions such as the ‘value-creation space’ (Crowther and Donland, 2011) and the ‘value variation space’ (Cabiddu et al., 2019), our framework stipulates the existence of an IVF space. We defined the IVF space as a two-dimensional sphere in which two or more actors interact on the basis of practices and resources to co-create or co-destroy value. Hence, it is within the IVF space that value is formed interactively in the guise of either VCD or VCC. In line with prior research, the framework specifically suggests that IVF is a function of the alignment and misalignment of practices (Crowther and Donland, 2011; Echeverri and Skålén, 2011; Hiler et al., 2018; Prior and Marcos-Cuevas, 2016; Skålén et al., 2015). Alignment is associated with VCC, and misalignment with VCD. The framework further suggests that IVF, VCC and VCD are a function of alignment/misalignment both within and in-between practices. Both the rationale behind and the consequence of the latter are explained below.

That IVF is a function of the alignment/misalignment of elements within practices is supported by several empirical studies (Becker et al., 2015; Camilleri and Neuhofer, 2017; Echeverri and Skålén, 2011; Skålén et al., 2015; Sorensen and Drennan, 2017; see also Table 1). In particular, prior practice-theory-informed research shows that IVF is determined by actual enactments of the elements making up practices, that is, procedures, understandings and engagements. The misalignment of elements is associated with VCD, and the alignment of elements with VCC (Caridà et al., 2019; Crowther and Donland, 2011; Echeverri and Skålén, 2011; Hiler et al., 2018; Skålén et al., 2015). Let us take the practice of the seminar as used in university studies as an example. The seminar is a framework for action that is enacted by lecturers and students in order to carry out a particular educational activity; hence, the seminar is a practice in Schatzki’s understanding (1996, 2002, 2019). When lecturers and university students enact the practice of the seminar, the degree of alignment of, for example, their engagements (the goals of the seminar) will influence the IVF of the seminar. However, the IVF is also an effect of how well the goals are aligned with the ability (understandings) to conduct a seminar (such as the ability to enact the roles of the seminar leader and the other participants). This notion of the alignment/misalignment of elements has not been emphasized in prior research (Echeverri and Salomonson, 2017a) but is supported by practice theory accounts which suggest that there needs to be strong congruence between the practice elements in order for these to facilitate VCC; otherwise, they will contribute to VCD (Schatzki, 2019; Shove et al., 2012).

IVF is also caused by misalignment and alignment occurring in-between practices, that is, by the degree of fit between two different practices, or more. This is something that has been little emphasized in prior VCD research. However, general practice theories suggest that actions and interactions are commonly accomplished through several linked practices. In particular, Schatzki (2002, 2019) outlines the notion of bundles of practices, designating practices which are tightly linked to one another and which actors commonly use in combination in order to act and interact. Building on this position, Schau et al. (2009) show that VCC is a function of how well different practices work together. Hence, research not focusing on VCD supports the position that alignment and misalignment occurring in-between practices informs IVF. Returning to our example about university studies, we can imagine that seminars, examinations, video conferences and other linked practices, that is, frameworks for action that people enact in order to carry our concrete activities, are used in a study programme. According to our framework, how well or poorly these practices work together (the extent to which they are aligned or misaligned) will be determined by IVF.

Hence, IVF is a function of the combined alignment and misalignment both within and in-between practices, as visualized by the IVF space in the framework. For maximum VCC to be realized, total alignment, both within and in-between practices, has to occur, represented by a position in the upper right corner of the IVF space. Maximum VCD, on the other hand, ensues when total misalignment exists within and in-between practices, see the lower left corner of the IVF space. We can also imagine a situation in which there is total misalignment in-between practices but total alignment within them, represented by a position in the upper left corner of the IVF space. Correspondingly, we can imagine a situation in which there is perfect alignment in-between practices but total misalignment within them, represented by a position in the lower right corner of the IVF space. All kinds of positions in-between these extremes are also possible.

The logic of the IVF space means that its grey triangle represents VCD outcomes/positions, while its white triangle represents VCC outcomes/positions. The arrows that frame the IVF space illustrate IVF processes. Any movements downwards and to the left are VCD processes. Any movements upwards and to the right are VCC processes. It is essential to note that VCD processes can take place within the white VCC outcome triangle and that VCC processes can similarly take place within the grey VCD outcome triangle. For example, a movement downwards and to the left that takes place within the white VCC part of the framework is still a VCD process despite the fact that the involved actor’s overall interpretation of the interaction is VCC.

Following the resource and service systems approach to VCD, the IVF framework also suggests that IVF is enabled and constrained by resources or resource configurations (see, e.g. Baker and Kim, 2019; Plé and Cáceres, 2010; Robertson et al., 2014; Stieler et al., 2014; Vafeas et al., 2016). While a few of the studies reviewed suggest that VCD and VCC are a function of single resources (e.g. Prior and Marcos-Cuevas, 2016), the bulk of them show that multiple resources are joined together to form resource configurations that drive either VCD or VCC (e.g. Becker et al., 2015; Hiler et al., 2018; Järvi et al., 2018; Smith, 2013; Zainuddin et al., 2017). Returning to our example of university studies, a single resource may be a lecture hall. Together with, for example, lecturers, computers, tables and chairs, the lecture hall resource constitutes a configuration of resources that can be used to conduct seminars, for example.

Prior research further suggests that resources are ‘becoming’ as a part of resource integration (Edvardsson et al., 2014; Pels et al., 2009; Peters, 2019; Zimmerman, 1951). In line with Korkman and Araujo (2019), we argue that resources are integrated within practices. Hence, resources being integrated in an appropriate or expected way, which is commonly associated with VCC, or in an inappropriate or unexpected way, which is usually associated with VCD (Plé and Cáceres, 2010), is not something determined by resources per se, in our understanding, but instead a function of how these are integrated within practices. In addition, the framework also stipulates that the way in which IVF evolves affects resources and resource configurations by reproducing or transforming them (Giddens, 1984; Makkonen and Olkkonen, 2017). In line with Plé and Cáceres (2010), we specifically argue that resources that are integrated in an appropriate or expected way during IVF, resulting in VCC, are likely to reproduce resources and resource configurations, while resources that are integrated in an inappropriate or unexpected way, resulting in VCD, are likely to transform resources and resource configurations. The framework thus suggests mutual conditioning between resources and practices, as represented by the two arrows pointing to and from the IVF space in the framework.

We also acknowledge that IVF does not take place only during dyadic interactions between customers and providers, as many practice-theory-informed studies of VCD suggest. Rather, we align ourselves with the resource and service-system-informed studies in suggesting that VCD, VCC and IVF may be accomplished through the interactions of any number of actors (see, e.g. Caridà et al., 2019; Makkonen and Olkkonen, 2017; Plé and Cáceres, 2010; Smith, 2013, and Table 1). In any given situation, one or more actors may be involved in IVF. If the latter is the case, the various actors might experience IVF in divergent ways (Vargo and Lusch, 2016).

Hence, the framework also suggests, in line with prior resource and service system studies, that VCD and VCC take place within service systems (Farquhar and Robson, 2017; Plé and Cáceres, 2010; Smith, 2013, Stieler et al., 2014; Tsiotsou, 2016), which we refer to as IVF systems (Caridà et al., 2019). We further suggest that IVF systems are constituted by shared institutions (Makkonen and Olkkonen, 2017; Vargo and Lusch, 2016; Williams et al., 2016) consisting of normative, regulative and cultural-cognitive pillars (Scott, 2013) which coordinate IVF, including the integration of resources within practices. However, not only do we suggest that IVF is coordinated by institutions but also that IVF reproduces or changes institutions (Giddens, 1984; Makkonen and Olkkonen, 2017). Returning to the example of university studies, the normative pillar represents common norms regarding what universities should do, for example, focusing on fostering insight and understanding, while the regulative pillar represents common rules, for example, the laws governing universities, and the cultural-cognitive pillar designates common meanings concerning universities, for example, what it entails being a university professor. However, the IVF that occurs within and in-between university practices may also change the institutions that condition the university IVF system.

Contribution and future research

This article contributes to research into marketing theory by reporting on a review of VCD research that summarizes and overviews this emerging field, particularly its key developments, differences and similarities. We have found that research into VCD has followed two lines of enquiry, that is, one which highlights the role of resources and service systems (Plé and Cáceres, 2010; Smith, 2013) and another which focuses on practices (Echeverri and Skålén, 2011; Skålén et al., 2015). A few previous studies of VCD have also combined the resource and service systems approach with the practice approach (Caridà et al., 2019; Makkonen and Olkkonen, 2017). The article compares and discusses 34 articles representing the core of previous research into the definition of VCD, the theoretical base, the identified forms and types of VCD and the suggested inherent theoretical relations (see Table 1).

Based on this review, the article makes a second contribution by outlining a synthesizing IVF framework (see Figure 1). This framework posits that there is a direct and reciprocal relationship between VCD and VCC processes, setting it apart from influential contemporary marketing frameworks focusing on value, for example, the S-D logic (Vargo and Lusch, 2016), the service logic (Grönroos, 2011; Grönroos and Voima, 2013) and the customer-dominant logic (Heinonen et al., 2010), which only focus on VCC.

In relation to prior VCD research, our IVF framework transcends, in line with a few previous studies (Caridà et al., 2019; Makkonen and Olkkonen, 2017), the resource and service systems approach and the practice approach which characterize prior VCD research. However, our framework suggests that practices is an overarching concept when it comes to understanding IVF as it is realized within a space primarily constituted by practices.

The framework not only confirms prior knowledge: Unlike other studies, the framework conceptualizes IVF as a function of alignment (which is associated with VCC) and misalignment (which is connected with VCD), both within elements of practices and in-between different practices. In addition, the framework also acknowledges that resources and resource configurations both enable and constrain IVF processes and outcomes and that IVF processes and outcomes reproduce and transform resources and resource configurations. This interdependence between resources and practices has not been addressed in previous VCD research. Hence, our article contributes by clarifying the relationship between resources and practices.

We argue that, to date, our conceptualization is the most relevant theoretical representation of how to understand and explain IVF, including VCC and VCD. In particular, the conceptualization used in this article stands in sharp contrast to prior resource and service systems studies, which have been preoccupied with identifying the sets, or composites, of resources involved in VCD and have thus overlooked how resources are integrated within practices. It also contrasts with prior practice-theory-informed research due to the framework firstly showing how practices integrate resources and secondly by suggesting that not just two actors may be involved in IVF, but multiple ones. In addition, unlike earlier VCD/VCC frameworks, the framework also suggests that VCD and VCC processes not only vary in accordance with a single positive (VCC) versus negative (VCD) dimension. Rather, the framework reflects various changes of position within the IVF space, as determined by the alignment and misalignment of elements of practices, and in-between different practices. That is to say, VCC and VCD processes can be depicted as having different directions within the IVF space.

We believe that our IVF framework can inform future research into value formation in marketing. In particular, our advice is that future research should focus on the following points: (1) Studying the integration of resources within practices and the extent to which resources and resource configurations support and/or hinder IVF. (2) We also recommend studying in greater detail the circumstances under which IVF conditions resource configurations, for example, if VCC drives reproduction and VCD drives transformation, or to see if we can identify other relations. (3) We also suggest that the IVF space be further specified using empirical research. For instance, how can we empirically categorize the different positions in-between the extreme positions within the space? (4) Research on IVF and VCD has mainly been either qualitative or conceptual. Quantitative research is also needed in order to statistically generalize the IVF framework. (5) Few studies have focused on the role of power and the intentional misuse of resources and practices during VCD (Chowdhury et al., 2016). Given that VCD is associated with conflicts of interest, power is likely to be integral to VCD and may be one avenue for future research. (6) The IVF framework can also be used in research on innovation. By focusing on how practices are transformed during IVF, or on how new ones are created, the framework may be used to understand how new ways of co-creating and co-destroying value are developed.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article: Per Skålén conducted this research as a part of his research project ‘The institutional logics and practices of marketing work’ which received financial support from Jan Wallanders’ and Tom Hedelius’ foundation and Tore Browaldhs’ foundation.

ORCID iDs

Per Echeverri

Per Skålén

Note

References

Akaka

Vargo

S.L.

Lusch

R.F.

(2012) ‘An Exploration of Networks in Value Cocreation: A Service-Ecosystems View’, in Vargo

S. L.

Lusch

R. F.

(eds) Special Issue – Toward a Better Understanding of the Role of Value in Markets and Marketing, pp. 13–50. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Baker

M.A.

Kim

(2019) ‘Value Destruction in Exaggerated Online Reviews: The Effects of Emotion, Language, and Trustworthiness’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 31(4): 1956–76.

Becker

S.V.

Aromaa

Eriksson

(2015) ‘Client-Consultant Interaction: The Dynamics of and Conflicts in Value Co-Creation and Co-Destruction’, International Journal of Services Technology and Management 21(1-3): 40–54.

Bourdieu

(1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London, UK: Routledge.

Cabiddu

Moreno

Sebastiano

(2019) ‘Toxic Collaborations: Co-Destroying Value in the B2B Context’, Journal of Service Research 22(3): 241–255.

Čaić

Odekerken-Schröder

Mahr

(2018) ‘Service Robots: Value Co-Creation and Co-Destruction in Elderly Care Networks’, Journal of Service Management 29(2): 178–205.

Camilleri

Neuhofer

(2017) ‘Value Co-Creation and Co-Destruction in the Airbnb Sharing Economy’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 29(9): 2322–40.

Caridà

Edvardsson

Colurcio

(2019) ‘Conceptualizing Resource Integration as an Embedded Process: Matching, Resourcing and Valuing’, Marketing Theory 19(1): 65–84.

Chowdhury

I.N.

Gruber

Zolkiewski

(2016) ‘Every Cloud has a Silver Lining—Exploring the Dark Side of Value Co-Creation in B2B Service Networks,’ Industrial Marketing Management 55: 97–109.

10.

Crowther

Donlan

(2011) ‘Value-Creation Space: The Role of Events in a Service-Dominant Marketing Paradigm’, Journal of Marketing Management 27(13-14): 1444–63.

11.

Daunt

K.L.

Harris

L.C.

(2014) ‘Linking Employee and Customer Misbehaviour: The Moderating Role of Past Misdemeanours’, Journal of Marketing Management 30(3-4): 221–44.

12.

Daunt

K.L.

Harris

L.C.

(2017) ‘Consumer Showrooming: Value Co-Destruction’, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 38: 166–76.

13.

Echeverri

Salomonson

(2017a) ‘Bi-Directional and Stratified Demeanour in Value Forming Service Encounter Interactions’, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 36: 93–102.

14.

Echeverri

Salomonson

(2017b) ‘Embodied Value Co-Creation: A Turn-Taking Perspective on Service Encounter Interactions’, Journal of Creating Value 3(1): 33–49.

15.

Echeverri

Skålén

(2011) ‘Co-Creation and Co-Destruction: A Practice-Theory Based Study of Interactive Value Formation’, Marketing Theory 11(3): 351–73.

16.

Edvardsson

Kleinaltenkamp

Tronvoll

, et al. (2014) ‘Institutional Logics Matter When Coordinating Resource Integration’, Marketing Theory 14(3): 291–309.

17.

Edvardsson

Tronvoll

Gruber

(2011) ‘Expanding Understanding of Service Exchange and Value Co-Creation: A Social Construction Approach’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 39(2): 327–39.

18.

Farquhar

J.D.

Robson

(2017) ‘Selective Demarketing: When Customers Destroy Value’, Marketing Theory 17(2): 165–82.

19.

Giddens

(1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.

20.

Grönroos

(2011) ‘Value Co-Creation in Service Logic: A Critical Analysis’, Marketing Theory 11(3): 279–301.

21.

Grönroos

Voima

(2013) ‘Critical Service Logic: Making Sense of Value Creation and Co-Creation’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 41(2): 133–50.

22.

Hasche

Linton

(2018) ‘The Value of Failed Relationships for the Development of a Medtech Start-Up’, Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship 30(1): 97–119.

23.

Heinonen

Strandvik

Mickelsson

K.J.

, et al. (2010) ‘A Customer-Dominant Logic of Service’, Journal of Service Management 21(4): 531–48.

24.

Hiler

J.L.

Cook

L.A.

Northington

W.M.

(2018) ‘Making Inconsistent Worlds: A Conceptual Framework for Co-Competition’, Journal of Consumer Marketing 35(3): 254–63.

25.

Järvi

Kähkönen

A.K.

Torvinen

(2018) ‘When Value Co-creation Fails: Reasons that Lead to Value Co-destruction’, Scandinavian Journal of Management 34(1): 63–77.

26.

Kantanen

(2017) ‘Value Co-production Through External Communication Consulting’, Corporate Communications: An International Journal 22(4): 455–70.

27.

Kashif

Zarkada

(2015) ‘Value Co-destruction Between Customers and Frontline Employees: A Social System Perspective’, International Journal of Bank Marketing 33(6): 672–91.

28.

Korkman

Araujo

(2019) ‘Using Practice Theory for Understanding Resource Integration in S-D Logic: A Multinational Study of Leading-Edge Customers’, in Vargo

S. L.

Lusch

R. F.

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Service-Dominant Logic, pp. 449–65. London, UK: SAGE.

29.

Luo

Wong

I.A.

King

, et al. (2019) ‘Co-creation and Co-destruction of Service Quality Through Customer-to-Customer Interactions: Why Prior Experience Matters’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 31(3): 1309–29.

30.

Makkonen

Olkkonen

(2017) ‘Interactive Value Formation in Interorganizational Relationships: Dynamic Interchange Between Value Co-creation, No-creation, and Co-destruction’, Marketing Theory 17(4): 517–35.

31.

Nicolini

(2011) Practice Theory, Work, and Organization: An Introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

32.

Oliver

R.L.

(2006) ‘Co-producers and Co-participants in the Satisfaction Process: Mutually Satisfying Consumption’, in Lusch

R. F.

Vargo

S. L.

(eds) The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and Directions, pp. 118–27. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

33.

Pels

Möller

Saren

(2009) ‘Do We Really Understand Business Marketing? Getting Beyond the RM and BM Matrimony’, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 24(5/6): 322–36.

34.

Peters

(2019) ‘Resource Integration: Concepts and Processes’, in Vargo

S. L.

Lusch

R. F.

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Service-Dominant Logic, pp. 341–56. London, UK: SAGE.

35.

Plé

(2016) ‘Studying Customers’ Resource Integration by Service Employees in Interactional Value Co-creation’, Journal of Services Marketing 30(2): 152–64.

36.

Plé

(2017) ‘Why Do We Need Research on Value Co-Destruction?’, Journal of Creating Value 3(2): 162–169.

37.

Plé

Cáceres

R.C.

(2010) ‘Not Always Co-creation: Introducing Interactional Co-destruction of Value in Service-Dominant Logic’, Journal of Services Marketing 24(6): 430–7.

38.

Prior

D.D.

Marcos-Cuevas

(2016) ‘Value Co-destruction in Interfirm Relationships: The Impact of Actor Engagement Styles’, Marketing Theory 16(4): 533–52.

39.

Quach

Thaichon

(2017) ‘From Connoisseur Luxury to Mass Luxury: Value Co-creation and Co-destruction in the Online Environment’, Journal of Business Research 81: 163–72.

40.

Razmdoost

Mills

(2016) ‘Towards a Service-Led Relationship in Project-Based Firms’, Construction Management and Economics 34(4-5): 317–34.

41.

Reckwitz

(2002) ‘Toward a Theory of Social Practices: A Development in Culturalist Theorizing’, European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2): 243–63.

42.

Robertson

Polonsky

McQuilken

(2014) ‘Are My Symptoms Serious Dr Google? A Resource-Based Typology of Value Co-destruction in Online Self-Diagnosis’, Australasian Marketing Journal 22(3): 246–56.

43.

Schatzki

T.R.

(1996) Social Practices: A Wittgensteinian Approach to Human Activity and the Social. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

44.

Schatzki

T.R.

(2002) The Site of the Social: A Philosophical Account of the Constitution of Social Life and Change. Philadelphia, PA: Penn State Press.

45.

Schatzki

T.R.

(2019) Social Change in a Material World. London, UK: Routledge.

46.

Schau

H.J.

Muñiz

A.M.

Jr Arnould

E.J.

(2009) ‘How Brand Community Practices Create Value’, Journal of Marketing 73(5): 30–51.

47.

Scott

W.R.

(2013) Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities. London, UK: Sage.

48.

Shove

Pantzar

Watson

(2012) The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How It Changes. London, UK: Sage.

49.

Skålén

Pace

Cova

(2015) ‘Firm-Brand Community Value Co-creation as Alignment of Practices’, European Journal of Marketing 49(3/4): 596–620.

50.

Smith

M.A.

(2013) ‘The Value Co-Destruction Process: A Customer Resource Perspective’, European Journal of Marketing 47(11/12): 1889–909.

51.

Smyth

Lecoeuvre

Vaesken

(2018) ‘Co-creation of Value and the Project Context: Towards Application on the Case of Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Station’, International Journal of Project Management 36(1): 170–83.

52.

Snyder

(2019) ‘Literature Review as a Research Methodology: An Overview and Guidelines’, Journal of Business Research 104: 333–9.

53.

Sorensen

Drennan

(2017) ‘Understanding Value-Creating Practices in Social Media-Based Brand Communities’, The Service Industries Journal 37(15-16): 986–1007.

54.

Stieler

Weismann

Germelmann

C.C.

(2014) ‘Co-destruction of Value by Spectators: The Case of Silent Protests’, European Sport Management Quarterly 14(1): 72–86.

55.

Torraco

R.J.

(2005) ‘Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples’, Human Resource Development Review 4(3): 356–67.

56.

Tronvoll

(2011) ‘Negative Emotions and Their Effect on Customer Complaint Behaviour’, Journal of Service Management 22(1): 111–34.

57.

Tsiotsou

R.H.

(2016) ‘A Service Ecosystem Experience-Based Framework for Sport Marketing’, The Service Industries Journal 36(11–12): 478–509.

58.

Vafeas

Hughes

Hilton

(2016) ‘Antecedents to Value Diminution: A Dyadic Perspective’, Marketing Theory 16(4): 469–91.

59.

Vargo

S.L.

Lusch

R.F.

(2016) ‘Institutions and Axioms: An Extension and Update of Service-Dominant Logic’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 44(1): 5–23.

60.

Williams

B.N.

Kang

S.C.

Johnson

(2016) ‘(Co)-Contamination as the Dark Side of Co-Production: Public Value Failures in Co-production Processes’, Public Management Review 18(5): 692–717.

61.

Worthington

Durkin

(2012) ‘Co-destruction of Value in Context: Cases From Retail Banking’, The Marketing Review 12(3): 291–307.

62.

Zainuddin

Dent

Tam

(2017) ‘Seek or Destroy? Examining Value Creation and Destruction in Behaviour Maintenance in Social Marketing’, Journal of Marketing Management 33(5-6): 348–74.

63.

Zimmerman

E.W.

(1951) World Resources and Industries: A Functional Appraisal of Availability of Agricultural and Industrial Resources. New York, NY: Harper and Row.