Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, Volume 17, Issue 1, 2022

Co-destruction of Value – A Stakeholder Conceptual Review

Olabode Ogunbodede

Bristol Business School, University of the West of England,

Coldharbour Lane, Bristol, BS16 1QY, United Kingdom.

Tel: +447725350791

Email: ola.ogunbodede@uwe.ac.uk

Abstract

Co-destruction of value has been highlighted as a possible outcome of every interaction between firms and

consumers. Despite the likelihood of its occurrence, the concept is not adequately defined or understood, while

little is known about how and where it occurs. This paper reviews the literature on co-destruction to provide

insights into what co-destruction is, and it identifies where co-destruction occurs and how it occurs through

resource mis-integration and in practice. The review takes a stakeholder approach, highlighting how value can

be co-destroyed by stakeholders both within the dyad of the firm and its consumers and beyond this dyad during

multiparty interactions and in virtual communities. The analysis suggests that value can only be co-destroyed

when the expectations of the beneficiary are higher than the level of service offered by the provider. The paper

proposes a new definition for co-destruction and highlights pressing research gaps within the co-destruction

literature.

Keywords:

service-dominant logic, value co-destruction, practices, resources, value destruction, value co-

creation, value creation, framework, expectations

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

1. INTRODUCTION

Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) defined co-creation as the process whereby more than one party joins

forces to interact, learn and share information to create value. It is based on the notion that the firm, which was

originally considered the centre of value creation, is now taking a back seat, as value is being increasingly

created within the firm’s network (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004). This network, which includes consumers

and other stakeholders, acts as a pool of knowledge which the firm can leverage to generate a range of benefits.

Previous limitations on value creation, as a result of the firm’s finite resources, can be overcome given that the

firm can now tap into the resources available within its immediate business environment. Co-creation emerged

with the introduction of the service dominant logic (SD logic), which introduced services as the fundamental

unit of exchange, as opposed to goods, under the goods dominant logic (GD logic) (Vargo and Lusch, 2004).

To an extent, co-creation encounters have been successful at generating value both for the consumer and

the firm. There are, however, encounters where the outcomes of value creating ventures have not been

favourable. These seemed to have been overlooked under the SD logic. In these processes, value is destroyed,

instead of being created. This process of value destruction was labelled ‘co-destruction’ by Plé and Cáceres

(2010) and refers to all forms of interactions between firms and their consumers where less than ideal value

propositions have been realised. Co-destruction, unlike co-creation, has not received much attention in the

literature. This lack of focus has been a result of the positive connotations associated with the term 'value' (Plé

and Cáceres, 2010) and the difficulty in identifying where value is destroyed in the SD logic. In the GD logic,

both the firm and its consumers played separate roles. The firm was assumed to play the sole role of value

creator, while the consumers played a role only in value destruction (Ramirez, 1999). Value was thought to be

exchanged in a market via goods (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2002) and it was easy to identify the value creator

and value destroyer. These roles have been redefined with the introduction of the SD logic and the emergence of

co-creation. The firm and its consumers are no longer considered to be on the opposite sides of value creation

and destruction. Both are now known to co-create value by interaction through various touch points (Prahalad

and Ramaswamy, 2004). This blurred the line between value creation and destruction, making it difficult to

identify where value is created (Saarijärvi et al., 2013) or destroyed. As the literature has increasingly accepted

the SD logic and the focus on co-creation has surged, the negative outcomes of interactions between the firm

and its consumers within the SD logic has been largely ignored (Vafeas et al., 2016).

This changed, however, with the introduction of the term ‘co-destruction’ by Plé and Cáceres (2010),

resulting in a gradual increase in publications focusing on the negative outcomes of interactions between firms

and consumers. The increased interest reflects the need to better understand co-destruction, since co-creation

and co-destruction are not necessarily opposites (Stieler et al., 2014) and understanding value co-creation does

not necessarily lead to an understanding of value co-destruction. In addition, actions and practices geared

towards value co-creation could eventually result in value co-destruction (Becker et al., 2015). Within the co-

destruction literature there is also the risk of a lack of adherence to a consistent theoretical perspective. This has

been found to occur within the co-creation literature (Ranjan and Read, 2014), where misunderstandings have

been identified over where co-creation occurs (Gronroos, 2011) and how it occurs (Saarijärvi et al., 2013).

These misunderstandings are being corrected through synthesis of the literature (Ranjan and Read, 2014,

Saarijärvi et al., 2013), shedding more light on various facets of the concept. Within the co-destruction

literature, there are no publications offering a similar synthesis. And as the co-destruction literature continues to

grow, the need for coherence in the theroretical perspective and an understanding of the concept has become

paramount. In a similar manner to the co-creation literature, it is therefore important to ensure proper synthesis

of the co-destruction literature to highlight what co-destruction is, where it occurs and how it occurs and to

highlight areas where more research is needed (Snyder, 2019). There is also a need to better understand co-

destruction in relation to co-creation. This will help pave the way for developing frameworks which will

simultaneously address both the upside and the downside of value formation, as suggested by (Echeverri and

Skalen, 2011).

The purpose of the paper is therefore to examine the literature on the co-destruction of value within the SD

logic from the inception of the concept until the present day (2010 – 2021), to develop a clear understanding of

its conceptualisation relative to the literature on the co-creation of value and to identify gaps in this area.

Specifically, this paper will try to answer these questions:

1. What is the co-destruction of value?

2. How does the co-destruction of value occur?

3. What are the pressing research gaps to address when it comes to co-destruction?

This paper is divided into three sections. The first section focuses on defining the co-destruction of value,

highlights what value is within the SD logic, where value is co-destroyed and how value is destroyed through

resource misintegration and in practice. The second section focuses on understanding co-destruction from the

perspective of various actors involved in value formation. This section touches on co-destruction by the firm

(business to business and business to consumer co-destruction of value), consumers, co-destruction beyond the

Olabode Ogunbodede

dyad of the firm in multiparty interactions and co-destruction in virtual communities. This is followed by a final

section, which highlights the pressing research gaps to be addressed within the co-destruction literature.

2. CO-DESTRUCTION OF VALUE

Understanding co-destruction depends on our understanding of what value is and where value is formed

within the SD logic. What value is and how it is formed, however, are still questions that are open to debate

(Gronroos, 2011). Also, the focus on collaborative value formation and destruction has highlighted the

importance of resources and how they are integrated in practice. These are not fully understood, however (Ple,

2016). The following sub-sections define value specifically relating to service systems and what value co-

destruction is within the SD logic. This discussion is followed by a review of the literature, aiming to identify

the locus of value co-destruction to shed more light on our understanding of how value is co-destroyed. The last

two sections discuss how value can be co-created and co-destroyed, due to resource integration or

misintegration, and how resources are integrated in practice.

2.1. Defining Value

Value is an elusive term and several authors have described value as one of the most ill-defined concepts in

management (Gronroos, 2011, Plé and Cáceres, 2010, Vargo and Lusch, 2008) or an amorphous concept

(Zeithaml and Bitner, 1996) which is multi-faceted and complex. Various definitions of value have been

provided within the business management literature (Table 1). Zeithaml (1988) defined value as “A consumer’s

total assessment of the utility of a product based on perceptions of what is given and what is received”. Woodall

(2003) defined it as “any demand-side, personal perception of advantage arising out of a customer’s association

with an organisation’s offering, which could occur as reduction in sacrifice; presence of benefits (perceived as

either attributes or outcomes); the resultant of any weighed combination of sacrifice and benefits (determined

and expressed either rationally or intuitively); or an aggregation, over time, of any or all of these”. Both

Zeithaml (1988) and Woodall (2003) definitions show an emphasis on the sacrifices and benefits/cost-benefits

associated with value and both have more of a focus on the utilitarian as opposed to the hedonic side of value.

This focus on the utilitarian side has come under criticism from various authors (Holbrook and Hirschman,

1982), claiming that a trade-off only between price and quality/ cost benefits is too simplistic. Adopting this

view, Holbrook (2006) attempted to provide a much more encompassing definition, stating that value is “an

interactive relativistic preference experience”. This defines value from an interaction perspective between an

object, which could be a product, and a subject, which could be a consumer, highlighting not only the utilitarian,

but also the hedonic side to value (experience).

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Table 1: Definitions of Value

Value (Definition)

Definition derived from different conceptions of the term

Perspective

Source

A consumer’s total assessment of the utility of a

product b

ased on perceptions of what is given

and what is received.

1. Value is low price;

2. Value is whatever I want in a product;

3. Value is the quality I get for the price I pay

4. value is what I get for what I give

Zeithaml’s four uses of the term ‘value’ showed the

general understanding of the concept of value was

based on some notion of its functional utility – shows

an emphasis on sacrifices/benefits

Zeithaml (1988)

Aggregated Value

Any demand-

side, personal perception of

advantage arising out of a customer’s association

with an organisation’s offering, which could

occur as a reduction in sacrifice; the presence of

benefits; the result of any weighed combination

of sacrifice and benefits; or an aggregation, over

time, of any or all of these.

1. Derived Value - Value conceived as use/experience

outcomes

2. Marketing Value - Value conceived as product attributes

3. Sale Value - Value conceived as a reduction in sacrifice

i.e. Price

4. Rational Value - Value conceived as the difference from

the objective price

5. Net Value- Value conceived as the balance of benefits and

sacrifices

Provided a representation of all consumer value types

based on consumer demand. Depicts a focus on the

utilitarian and like Zeithaml’s definition, it highlights

the emphasis on sacrifices/benefits

Woodall (2003)

An interactive relativistic preference experience.

1. Utilitarian Value – The functional utility /dimension of

value

2. Hedonic Value – the experiential dimension of value

Defines value from an interaction perspective

between an object, which could be a product, and a

subject, which could be a consumer.

Captures both the hedonic and utilitarian sides of

value and considers interactions –

shows little

emphasis on sacrifices/benefits but highlights

preferences

Holbrook (2006)

Value for Service Systems

An improvement in a system's well-being -

which can be measured in terms of a system’s

ability to adapt or fit into its environment.

Derived specifically to define value for service systems

Defines value for service systems with a focus on

improving the well being of the system. This

improvement is defined by the ability of the system

to better fit into its environment. Does not touch on

sacrifices/benefits.

Vargo et al.

(2008)

Perceived value

An evaluatio

n of the "fairness" of the

transaction, i.e., the trade-off between perceived

quality and perceived sacrifice.

Perceived Value = Acquisition value + Transaction Value

1. Transaction Value -

The perceived merits of a "deal."

(Monroe & Chapman 1987)

2. Acquisition Value - The net value that accrues from the

trade-off between the actual price charged and the perceived

benefits of acquiring a product. (Monroe & Chapman 1987)

Conceives value based on how consumers evaluate

the quality or benefits to be received from a product

relative to the sacrifice inherent in the price. This

definition also focuses on the utilitarian side of value.

Monroe and

Krishnan (1985)

Olabode Ogunbodede

Specifically for service systems, value is defined as ‘‘an improvement in a system’s well-being’

which can be measured in terms of a system’s ability to adapt or fit into its environment” (Vargo et al.,

2008). This definition is based on the notion that the function of service systems is to make use of its

own resources and the resources of others to improve its circumstance and that of others (Vargo et al.,

2008). This definition, like others, has been criticised within the co-destruction literature as providing

an over optimistic view and a favourable perspective on the outcome of value related processes (Plé

and Cáceres, 2010). It fails to consider the infinite possibility that resources can be used within the

system to the detriment of others. This rather positive connotation of “relativistic preferences” by

Holbrook (2006), “personal perceptions of advantage” by (Woodall, 2003), “assessments of the utility”

by Zeithaml (1988) and “an improvement in a systems well-being” by (Vargo et al., 2008) have had a

strong influence on how we assess value related activities, by leaning towards positive outcomes of all

value creating activities, at the expense of the negative outcomes.

2.2. Defining Co-destruction

With only a few articles in the literature focusing specifically on co-destruction, definitions of co-

destruction are not as diverse as those of co-creation. Eleven different definitions of co-creation were

identified in the course of this review, while only five definitions of co-destruction (Table 2) were

identified. The first one was by Plé and Cáceres (2010), who defined co-destruction as: “an

interactional process between service systems that results in a decline in at least one of the system's

well-being (which, given the nature of a service system, can be individual or organizational)”. This

definition takes into consideration the importance of interactions in value formation and destruction

(Gronroos, 2011). It also takes into consideration the role of service systems, which are the collection

of resources involved in the creation of value such as people, information and technology (operant

resources). Service systems can vary in size, with every system being both a provider and client of a

service that is connected by value propositions in value chains, value networks, or value-creating

systems (Normann, 2001). The definition also introduces the major clause “decline in well-being of at

least one of the interacting systems”, in which decline refers to unmet expectations. A second definition

was proposed by Vafeas et al. (2016), who argued that the term co-destruction does not fully capture

the phenomenon of value loss, since the term destruction implies irreversible loss. Vafeas et al. (2016)

opted for the term diminished, instead of destroyed, and claimed value diminution could be a more

accurate description in comparison to value destruction. They defined 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”. Thus, like Ple and Caceres’ definition, an activity

is classified as destructive when it does not meet the expectations of one or both members of the

interaction.

More recent definitions of co-destruction (Corsaro, 2019, Cunha, 2019) highlight an interesting

trend in the conceptualisation of co-destruction within the literature. Both Corsaro (2019) and Cunha

(2019) view co-destruction as a process which occurs following the co-creation of value or the

intention to co-create value. These definitions are in line with Plé and Cáceres (2010) in that

interactions originally set up to co-create value could result in the unintentional co-destruction of value

but fail to align with situations highlighted by Stieler et al. (2014), where value does not have to be co-

created before being co-destroyed.

A focus on collaboration and processes can be seen across definitions of both co-destruction and

co-creation. This highlights the crucial point that both co-destruction and co-creation are outcomes of

interactive processes. They not only involve more than one party, as their names imply, but are

outcomes of a process of interactions between these parties. These processes could be firm or customer

orchestrated (Carù and Cova (2015) and are the basis of resource mis-integration or integration, which

determine if value is destroyed or created. The definitions also show that these collaborations occur at

different stages along the value chain and the level of involvement of each party differs (Fleischman et

al., 2015) This shows the dynamic nature of co-destruction and co-creation and the importance of

understanding the stages where these interactions are likely to occur and what degree of involvement is

required from each party to facilitate or support value creation or destruction. Finally, a distinction can

be seen between both definitions. Definitions of co-creation touch on innovation and creativity and this

is not reflected in any of the definitions of co-destruction. This reflects the process of new product

development and innovation fostered by co-creation and the literature has responded by providing

studies focusing on this. However, this is lacking within the co-destruction literature, with only one

publication found touching on co-destruction in new product development (Gebauer et al., 2013).

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Table 2: Definitions of Co-creation & Co-destruction and Emerging Themes

Concept

Definition

Themes

Source

Collaboration

Process

Innovation

Active, Creative & Social

Resources

Degree

/Stages of Collaboration

Co-creation

Joint activities of both parties

(customers and service providers)

to contribute to the value that

emerges for one or both parties.

Zhang et al. (2015)

Collaborative work between a

consumer and a firm in an

innovation process, whereby the

consumer and supplier engage (to

varying degrees) in the activity of

co-ideation, co-design, co-

development and co-

creation of

new products or services

Prahalad and Ramaswamy

(2004)

A process for developing systems,

products or servic

es through

collaboration among customers,

managers, employees and other

stakeholders

Ramaswamy and Gouillart

(2010)

An active, creative, and social

process based on collaboration

between organisations and

Ind et al. (2012)

Olabode Ogunbodede

participants that generates benefits

for all and creates value for

stakeholders

An active, creative and social

process b

ased on collaboration

between organizations and

participants th

at generates mutual

benefits for all stakeholders

Kaufmann et al. (2016)

An interactive, creative and social

process between stakeholders that

is initiated by the firm at different

stages of the value creation

process.

Roser et al. (2013)

The joint, collaborative,

concurrent, peer-

like process of

producing new value, both

materially and symbolically.

Galvagno and Dalli (2014)

The process where more than one

party joins forces to interact, learn

and share information to create

value.

Prahalad and Ramaswamy

(2004)

The participation of consumers

along with producers in the

creation of value in the

marketplace.

(Zwass, 2010)

An enactment of interactional

creation across interactive system-

environments (affo

rded by

interactive platforms), entailing

agencing engagements and

structuring organizations

Ramaswamy and Ozcan

(2018)

Co-

destruction

An interactional process between

service systems that results in a

decline in at least one of the

system's well-being (which, given

the nature of a service system, can

be individual or organizational).

Plé and Cáceres (2010)

The perceived suboptimal value

realisation that occurs as a

Vafeas et al. (2016)

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

consequence of resource

deficiencies in, or resource misuse

by, one or more interacting actors.

The process through which

relational parties co-

destroy the

value they previously co-created,

generating a diminution in the

value actors appropriated.

(Corsaro, 2019)

Describes the phenomenon in

which multiple actors interact and

integrate their resources to realize

valuable benefits, and yet their

collaborations result in a

decline of the wellbeing of at least

one of these actors.

(Cunha, 2019)

Value co-destruction is both an

outcome and a process in which the

viability or well-being of an actor

or system decreases

(Hogg et al., 2021)

Olabode Ogunbodede

The literature on co-destruction shows a distinction between the use of the terms ‘diminish’ and

‘destroy’. Woodruff and Flint (2006) highlighted the possibility of value being diminished, but did not

talk about value co-destruction, implying that diminished value and co-destroyed value are two

separate constructs. Smith (2013) also questioned if certain scenarios can be described appropriately as

value co-destruction, highlighting the possibility of diminished value through devaluation. Vafeas et al.

(2016) named the process of value loss as value diminution, as opposed to value co-destruction,

because it eliminates the need for the prefix ‘co’. “This often causes confusion, especially in scenarios

where only one actor is destroying value” (Alford, 2016, Vafeas et al., 2016). Within the co-creation

literature, the prefix ‘co’ has been criticised for causing confusion when it comes to understanding who

creates value and who co-creates it (Saarijärvi et al., 2013), making it important to define the roles of

the actors and for whom value is being created. The Vafeas et al. (2016) definition also avoids the use

of the term 'decline in well-being', which has been criticised as an unclear way of expressing value co-

destruction outcomes (Prior and Marcos-Cuevas, 2016). Instead, it opts to classify interactions as 'value

diminishing', based on the resource deficiencies or resource misuse, which was also stated by Smith

(2013). Whilst the definitions of both Vafeas et al. (2016) and Plé and Cáceres (2010) capture the

essence of interactions and offer insights into what co-destruction/value diminution is, they fail to

reflect certain attributes of value loss/destruction within the SD logic. The terms 'diminished' or

'destroy' refer to the process or act of making something smaller or less than its original status or size.

To say value has been diminished is to say value which has already been formed is being reduced to a

lesser quantity. This, however, does not always apply to co-destruction, because value does not have to

be co-created before it can be co-destroyed (Stieler et al., 2014). The series of events that lead to the

destruction or diminution of value could either tarnish the already existing positive perception of value

or it could prevent the creation of any positive perception of value. In addition, value creation for one

actor could mean value destruction to another (Plé and Cáceres, 2010). To identify if value is being

destroyed, it is important to identify which dimension of value is being created (Stieler, 2014) and

whose value is being co-created (Saarijärvi et al., 2013). This makes value destruction specific to the

beneficiary. This is in line with the 10th foundational premise of the SD logic, which states that value

can only be determined by the beneficiary. An appropriate definition of value loss in the SD logic

should reflect the specificity of value destruction to the beneficiary. Taking this into consideration and

accepting the similar definition of value as “an improvement in a system's well-being’ which can be

measured in terms of a system’s ability to adapt or fit into its environment” (Vargo et al., 2008), one

definition for co-destruction could be: A value undermining interaction for a service system.

Undermining denotes both actions that weaken the exisiting status of an entity and actions that prevent

an entity from realising its full potential. This definition also captures the specificity of value

destruction, considering that value here is defined as “an improvement in a system's well-being”. Any

such interaction that weakens the value proposition affects the wellbeing of the system. Finally, it also

reflects the fact that the type of value being destroyed only relates specifically to the service system for

which value is being created.

2.3. Locus of Value Co-destruction

Understanding where value is co-destroyed depends on our understanding of what value is and the

locus of the formation of value. In our understanding of where value is realised, various logics have

emerged. The SD logic puts the locus of value formation on the beneficiary in a system where actors

can only make value propositions (FP7 & FP10 (Vargo and Lusch, 2016)). However, Gronroos (2011)

argues against the 7th foundational premise of the SD Logic, which states that “firms (Actors or

providers) cannot deliver/create value but can only make value propositions”. Gronroos (2011)

proposes a service logic which focuses on interactions between firms (providers) and their customers

(beneficiaries). Specifically, the service logic states that although customers are in charge of their value

creation and fundamentally are the value creators, in situations when firms take advantage of the

opportunities available to interact with their customers, the firm also co-creates value with the

customers. A third logic, which views value creation from the consumer perspective – the customer

dominant logic (CD logic) proposes taking a position with a focus on the customer’s network, as

opposed to service in the SD logic or the service provider/ consumer interaction in the service logic.

The question of where value is destroyed depends on the logic we adopt for value creation and whose

value is being created. Hill et al. (2016) investigated value co-destruction within a maximum-security

prison. Their focus on interactions between the wardens and the inmates revealed that the wardens

(who could be seen as the provider) acted from a position of power, treating the inmates as less than

fully human service beneficiaries. The actions of the wardens dehumanised the inmates, resulting in a

counterfactual thinking that culminates in an ‘us vs. them’ mentality by the inmates. This implies a

two-step process to value co-destruction, where the wardens make a value destroying proposition by

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

mistreating the inmates and if accepted by the inmates, results in an ‘us vs. them’ destruction of value

scenario. This is in line with the SD logic’s 7th premise, which states that actors/ providers can only

make value propositions. However, this does not result in co-destruction until it is deemed destructive

by the beneficiary, who in this case are the inmates. This pattern of value co-destruction is observed

within the literature (Kashif and Zarkada, 2015, Mills and Razmdoost, 2016) and applies to both

intentional and unintentional value destroying activities. Moving beyond the dyad of the firm and the

consumer, value propositions by firms can be modified within the consumer sphere, resulting in the co-

destruction of value. Carù and Cova (2015) utilised a multiple case vignette approach to study the

collective experience of service dimensions. They identified the influence the presence of other actors

could have on value creation during interactions. Seemingly positive intentions by firms, such as

placing bets, could be modified by certain practices within the consumer sphere. These practices (e.g.

queuing) are ambivalent in nature and can result in value co-destruction or co-creation (Carù and Cova,

2015, Echeverri and Skalen, 2011). The eventual experience also depends on where the activity was

initiated. If initiated by the firm, they could be managed. When they are initiated by actors outside the

company, they are difficult or impossible to manage and are thus more likely to result in the co-

destruction of value. This could also be better illustrated by the case of the multiple value dimensions

observed by Stieler et al. (2014), where the resultant value destroyed was determined by the dimension

of value being created. These multiple dimensions of co-created and co-destroyed value are explained

further in the next section.

It is also important to note there are instances where value is neither created nor destroyed.

Recently, the literature has shown publications highlighting three different types of value outcomes as a

result of interactive value formation – value co-destruction, value co-creation and value no-creation

(Makkonen and Olkkonen, 2017, Sthapit and Björk, 2018). Value no-creation indicates a third outcome

other than the dual outcomes of co-creation and co-destruction. Here, value is neither co-created nor

co-destroyed and refers to a neutral outcome during interactions. Makkonen and Olkkonen (2017) in

their paper built a framework for interactive value formation (IVF) in interorganisational relationships.

This framework was utilised in a case study featuring a 3-year relationship between a museum and a

media company and found co-destructive and no-creative instances dominated co-creative instances.

Sthapit and Björk (2018) in their netnography study on IVF within tourism accommodation services

identified keywords which were linked to value co-creation (good, positive, excellent, great and nice),

value co-destruction (bad, negative, worst, terrible and poor) and value no-creation (ok, average,

standard, decent and not good not bad).

2.4. Value Co-destruction Through Resource Misintegration

Just as resource integration is critical to value creation (Vargo et al., 2008), misintegration of

resources is a critical component of value destruction. This makes understanding the origin and nature

of resources important. The shift from the GD logic to the SD logic, outlined in the eleven foundational

premises (FP1-11) (Vargo and Lusch, 2016), highlights the importance of resources in value co-

creation. FP4 states that “operant resources are the fundamental source of strategic benefit” (Vargo and

Lusch, 2016). Fundamental to the SD logic is the focus on operant resources, which are resources that

act on other resources, such as knowledge and skills. Within the GD logic, however, the focus is on

operand resources, which are resources acted on such as goods (Constantin and Lusch, 1994, Vargo

and Lusch, 2004). The ninth foundational premise (FP9) also states that “all social and economic actors

are resource integrators” (Vargo and Lusch, 2004). The SD logic considers all customers to be value

co-creators with the firm (Neghina et al., 2015), utilising their resources in a positive manner to create

value. This is not always the case, however, since these resources can be utilised in an adverse manner,

resulting in the co-destruction of value (Williams et al., 2016). This bipolar nature can be ascribed to

all resources, since they only acquire the status of resources in the function of the context of their use

(Ple, 2016). Thus, a resource which is integrated within a system to positively create value could serve

as a value destroying resource within the same system or in other systems. This point was made by Plé

and Cáceres (2010), who argued that value loss for one party could result in value gain for another.

Firms only serve the purpose of supporting other actors in their value co-creation processes by

providing resources which fit into their practices within a service system (Storbacka et al., 2012).

Actors also can enhance the creation of value-in-use, by providing resources and also help other actors

in the service system integrate their resources with other exsisting resources in the system (Storbacka et

al., 2012). Therefore, for value to be co-created, resources have to be sacrificed (Zeithaml, 1988). In a

conceptual paper by Ple (2016), a list of twelve resources which consumers utilise in value creation

was constructed (Table 3). These resources, when sacrificed by the consumer and congruently

integrated, could result in value creation.

Olabode Ogunbodede

Table 3: List of Identified Resources

Author

Identified Resources (Both Co-creation & Co-destruction)

Ple (2016)

Informational Resources

Emotional Resources

Physical Resources

Financial Resources

Temporal Resources

Behavioral Resources

Relational Resources

Social Resources

Cultural Resources

Role-related Resources

Customer Ability

Customer Willingness

Smith (2013)

Material Resources,

Self-Related Resources (self-efficacy)

Social Resources (support and relationship benefits)

Energies (time, money, knowledge, physical and emotional energy)

(Malone et al.,

2018)

Positive Emotional Resources

Pleasure

Excitement

Enjoyment

Happiness

Fun

Contentment

Negative Emotional Resources

Hubris

Sadness

Frustration

Disgust

Occasionally, these sacrificed resources can be misused in the system. This occurs when one actor

or provider in a system has failed to integrate or utilise the available operant and operand resources of

at least one of the other members of the service systems in an appropriate or expected manner from the

other system’s perspective (Plé and Cáceres, 2010). This misuse can be intentional or unintentional and

can be as a result of various factors (Laud et al., 2019), resulting in value co-destruction. In situations

where these resources are misused, possibly due to incongruent integration, consumers experience

resource loss and, to gain back the lost resources, there is a tendency for consumers to sacrifice more

resources in a process known as coping (Smith, 2013). This was identified by Smith (2013) when she

investigated resource loss using a conservation of resources approach (COR). Smith identified a list of

resources (Table 3) in an experiment involving respondents in three shopping centres in the North of

England. COR theory focuses on how individuals try to acquire more resources, by utilising their

current ones. This is similar to value co-creation, during which systems interact to integrate resources

to create value. When individuals use their resources to obtain more resources, but do not get any in

return, i.e. the expected outcome of the encounter is not met, there is a tendency to invest more

resources with the hope of achieving their expected result (Farquhar and Robson, 2017, M. Smith,

2013). Further loss of resources, which is usually unexpected, impacts on the individual’s behaviour

and generates negative emotions. This ultimately results in value destruction and is triggered by the

failure of the resource integration process to create the expected value. Smith’s work showed how

resource integrations which ought to result in value creation can result in value destruction by

exploring the nature and process of value co-destruction occurring from an organisation's misuse of

customer resources. Respondents were asked to define what they had expected from their experience

with firms and what had not happened as expected. The respondents also described how the initial loss

of resources triggered further interaction or investment of resources in the hope of recouping the lost

resources.

The importance of resources in ensuring value co-creation was also stated by Leo and Zainuddin

(2017) in their study on social marketing services, where value was found to be destroyed when there

was incongruent resource application and the misuse of the firms resources by either actor, ultimately

leading to the reduced usage of the service, termination of the service and strategic behavioural actions

(finding alternative solutions). Other authors have also attributed value co-destruction to resource

absence or misalignment in service systems. On one hand, Prior and Marcos-Cuevas (2016) identified

value co-destruction in interfirm relationships. In such cases co-destruction occurs when actors believe

they are unable to achieve their desired outcomes from engaging in a collaborative process with other

actors. This also occurs when there is a net deficit between actors' perceived benefits and the perceived

costs from collaboration. On the other hand, Chathoth et al. (2014) argued that value destruction occurs

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

within the firm when employees are not treated as operant resources. Malone et al. (2018), in their

study of tourist consumption experiences, identified emotions (Table 3) as important resources which

contribute to value co-creation and value co-destruction. Their study, which was grounded in the

customer dominant logic (CD logic), showed how emotions as a customer operant resource contribute

to value creation in the preconsumption, core consumption and postconsumption (nostalgia) stages.

These emotions could be positive or negative and contribute to value co-creation or co-destruction and

emerge from congruent or incongruent practices respectively. To ensure value co-creation, firms

should have an understanding of how resources are integrated to co-create value and be able to identify

customers who are failing to co-create. To this end, Farquhar and Robson (2017) argue that firms can

selectively demarket customers who fail to co-create by developing higher order operant resources or

strategic capabilities to discourage or disengage these customers. It is important to note that consumers

are more likely to continously co-create value when they think resources are misused by themselves

and co-destroy value when they think resources are misused by firms (Hsu et al., 2021).

Beyond individual integration of resources, resources can also be integrated collectively. Bruce et

al. (2019) studied resource integration in collective consumption contexts and highlighted six activities

through which household members integrate resources in the creation, or destruction, of value

(resource assembly, resource mastery, resource optimization, usage event planning, real-time usage

design, and resource reflection). Whether resource integration results in co-creation or co-destruction

depends on such factors as the varying agency of consumers, human error and the behaviours of those

involved in resource integration. It is important to note that not all forms of misintegration result in

value co-destruction. There are situations where the misintegration of resources could result in value

co-creation (Ple, 2016). Given that the resultant creation or destruction of value depends on the

beneficiaries' expected use of their resources, when beneficiaries have low expectations of the use of

their resources, misintegration could result in value co-creation when the provider surpasses their

expectations. Finally, not all resources present within the system are critical when it comes to attaining

the actor’s value creation goals. Resources present within the system which are not utilised for value

creation are worthless and could facilitate value destruction (Storbacka et al., 2012).

2.5. Firm and Consumer Value Co-destruction Practices

Value in use is created as actors integrate resources in practice, making practices a key part of

value creation and value destruction. Practices are dynamic and constantly in flux (Skålén et al., 2015)

and are defined as “routinised actions, which are orchestrated by tools, knowhow, images, physical

space and a subject who is carrying out the practice” (Storbacka et al., 2012). Their occurrence is

driven by the actors in the service system and their evolution within the system is situational. Practices

are not the same as actions, but instead, they expand the unit of analysis to the system that fosters the

action (Storbacka et al., 2012). Within a system, a series of actions constitutes a process, while

practices are a combination of processes. Practices therefore cannot be fully understood by studying the

singular actions of actors within the system, but by taking a systemic view to get a better picture of

how the service systems are integrated. They work together to enhance the value actors realise (Schau

et al., 2009) and have a characteristic power to explain why and how value is realised (Echeverri and

Salomonson, 2017).

Schau et al. (2009), in their work on identifying how brand community practices create value,

argued that practices exhibit a common anatomy described as understandings (knowledge and tacit

cultural templates), procedures (explicit performance rules) and engagements (emotional projects and

purposes). These three components function cohesively within practices. The twelve identified

practices (Table 4), when drawn on, help consumers realise value beyond that which the firm creates or

anticipates. This work did not touch on the value destroying potential of these practices, however.

Value co-destruction and value co-creation are both important dimensions of interactive value practices

and the downside of these practices should be captured (Echeverri and Skalen, 2011). Such a view was

also supported by Skålén et al. (2015), who argued that how well practices fit together in value co-

creation does not capture what constitutes a good or a bad fit. A lack of fit in practices could cause the

lack of value co-creation and the misalignment of practices could result in value co-destruction

(Echeverri and Skalen, 2011).

Within the co-destruction literature, increasing attention is being paid to understanding practices

and how actor interpretations could result in co-destruction. Echeverri and Skalen (2011) studied

interactions between bus drivers and their customers and found that there is a possibility of value co-

creation or co-destruction in every encounter. They identified five practices which were drawn upon

during interactions. These five practices (Table 4), could be associated with both co-creation or co-

destruction depending on the procedures and understandings of the encounter. The five practices

identified shape the praxis (stream of activity) of the practitioners (human actors) involved in

Olabode Ogunbodede

consumer-firm interactions. Thus, providers and customers draw on various elements of practice

(procedures, engagement, understanding) to interpret the actions of other actors. This shows the

subjective nature of value creation based on practice interpretation. An actor's interpretation of a

practice determines the resultant value created or destroyed. This is in line with Gronroos (2011), who

stated that value is always perceived in an individualistic way. Echeverri and Salomonson (2017) also

identified a set of six practices which are bi-directional in nature (Table 4). Utilising a dataset of

customer narratives on value-creating and value-destroying practices in public transport, they were able

to identify value sub-forming activities, which inform the formation of perceived customer value-in-

use. These sub-activities could be combined in different sequences, they could occur simultaneously

and their bi-directional patterns are context specific. This shows the complex nature of practices and

the need for more focus on practices to fully understand their bi-directional nature and how they

combine to co-create or co-destroy value. Other authors have identified practices with value co-

creating and co-destroying elements. For instance, Carù and Cova (2015) and Skålén et al. (2015)

identified two different sets of eight practices (Table 4). Carù and Cova (2015) divided their identified

practices based on the locus of initiation, which could be either community initiated, firm initiated or

jointly initiated. They argued that the manageability of these practices is determined by the locus of

initiation. Skålén et al. (2015) identified three aggregates of collaborative practices: interacting

practices (enacted by actors to work as a collective entity), identity practices (enacted to unify brands

and their global community) and organising practices (pertaining to the working methods and rules

regulating how to collaborate and co-create value). They stated that where misalignment of practices

occurs based on misalignment of procedures, understandings and engagements, resulting in value co-

destruction, each of the three instances of misalignment could be realigned using three strategies.

Misalignment of procedures could be remedied by compliance, misalignment in understandings could

be remedied by interpretation and misalignment in engagement could be remedied by orientation.

Within the B2B space Cabiddu et al. (2019), in a case study involving conversations with practitioners,

identified practices which facilitate value co-destruction by affecting four forms of capital – cultural,

economic, social and symbolic capital. These practices can affect more than one form of capital and are

often enacted in different ways. Thus a value co-destroying practice of lacking knowledge and

informational resources can affect cultural capital and can be enacted through underestimating the

project complexity or simply lacking information.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Table 4: List of Identified practices (NB: Schau et al. 2009 only focused on co-creation)

Author

Schau et al. (2009)

Echeverri and

Skalen (2011)

Carù and Cova (2015)

Skålén et al. (2015)

(Echeverri and

Salomonson, 2017)

(Yin et al.,

2018)

(Camilleri and

Neuhofer, 2017)

Author's Focus

Only Co-creation

Both Co-creation & Co-destruction

Identified

Practices

Welcoming

Empathizing

Governing

Evangelizing

Justifying

Staking

Milestoning

Badging

Documenting

Grooming

Customizing

Commoditizing

Informing

Greeting

Delivering

Charging

Helping

Exulting

Helping

Informing

Judging

Performing

Queuing

Value Sharing

Volunteering

Dialoging

Translating

Praising

Branding

Mirroring

Managing

Governing

Questioning

&Answering

Mood Expressing

Caring

Connecting

Responding

Substantializing

Embedding

Instaling

Finding

Riding

Parking

Placing

Welcomimng

Expressing Feelings

Evaluating Location

& Accommodation

Helping &

Interacting

Recommending

Thanking

Olabode Ogunbodede

3. STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS OF CO-DESTRUCTION

The literature treats co-destruction and co-creation as two separate constructs. However, there is

increasing evidence that both should be treated as likely possibilities with every interaction (Plé and

Cáceres, 2010). This dual treatment has led to a difference in focus in terms of publications on co-

destruction and on co-creation. The bulk of co-creation experiments have been developed to emphasise

the occurrence of co-creation at the expense of the possibility of co-destruction. In the following

sections, we build on our understanding of where co-destruction occurs and how it occurs, delving

deeper into the literature relating to co-destruction, focusing on the firm, consumers and virtual

communities. The firm and consumers represent the most common units of analysis. This is because

value formation was largely considered to occur primarily between the firm and the consumer (Siguaw

et al., 2014), due to the focus of the SD logic on this dyad when it was introduced. Vargo and Lusch

(2008b), however, argue that value creation occurs beyond this dyad, claiming that the venue of value

creation is the value configurations—economic and social actors within networks interacting and

exchanging across and through networks. To this end, two extra sections focusing on value destruction

between firms and multiparty co-destruction of value beyond the dyad of the firm and the consumer

have been included.

3.1. Firm Co-destruction of value (Business to Consumer)

Various factors within the firm have been identified as barriers to consumer engagement. These

factors are usually embedded in the firm's strategy, organisational structure and culture (Chathoth et al.,

2014). Inadequate intra-organisational factors, such as information flow (Kaartemo and Känsäkoski,

2018, Järvi et al., 2018), communication (Sthapit, 2018, Espersson and Westrup, 2020), bad behaviour

(Sthapit and Björk, 2019) and technology (Malar et al., 2019), could serve as barriers to effective

consumer engagement, which could hamper the firm's co-creation efforts. These factors can undermine

consumer engagement by reducing the amount of information available to consumers for decision

making, reducing interaction with consumers and reducing the access of consumers to transformational

channels. Sthapit and Jiménez-Barreto (2018) in their study on antecedents of value co-destruction

identified improper communication between guests and hosts on Airbnb as one of the factors

responsible for negative experiences. Whilst proper communication was identified as a factor which

could help build trust and minimize uncertainty, consumers emphasised how the ‘lack of’, or improper,

communication leads to service failure and a feeling of being devalued as a consumer. Säwe and

Thelander (2015) and Kaartemo and Känsäkoski (2018) also identified communication as an important

factor in determining if value is co-created or co-destroyed during interaction with firms. Säwe and

Thelander (2015) investigated value co-destruction and co-creation during an art event organised by the

Swedish municipality of Helsingborg in a city renewal project. During the event, improper framing and

poor communication resulted in a less than ideal experience for the participants. Activities and

exhibitions were not as engaging as they were designed to be due to a lack of information about their

usage and unclear framing. Kaartemo and Känsäkoski (2018) also found that the risk of co-destruction

increased when a healthcare organisation’s information and knowledge is poorly communicated, often

in situations where information is collected by people other than the professionals who eventually need

the information.

Despite poor communication being identified as a factor which facilitates co-destruction, Osei-

Frimpong et al. (2015) study on service experiences between physicians and patients in the consulting

room shows that excess information and knowledge can also lead to the co-destruction of value. With

healthcare service delivery typically considered a knowledge intensive service, doctors are typically

more knowledgeable in comparison to their patients. This, however, is changing with the advent of

consumerism. Patients are becoming more knowledgeable and informed due to access to information in

relation to their health needs. This influences their inputs in the consulting room through information

sharing, ultimately leading to practices engaged in by the patient which healthcare providers find

difficult to accept. Besides communication and information flow, other factors such as the literacy of

both the healthcare provider and patients (Palumbo and Manna, 2018) have also been identified as

something which could influence the outcome of interactions. Value co-creation requires the congruent

integration of resources between the provider and the beneficiary and inadequate health literacy

prevents the patients’ contribution to health service design and delivery, thus compelling the healthcare

professionals to adopt an approach which regards the patient as a mere recipient of health services.

Carù and Cova (2015), in their study of consumption practices which lead to the co-creation of

collective service experiences, identified eight practices (Table 4), utilising a case vignette approach.

They organised the practices to highlight the initiator of the practice (firm, consumer or both parties)

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

and the impact of the practice (co-creation or co-destruction). Four of the identified practices could be

initiated by either the firm (volunteering and queuing) or the consumer/community (performing and

judging), which could result in both co-creation and co-destruction. Out of the remaining four, three of

them (value sharing, informing and exulting) could be initiated by either the firm or the

consumer/community and result only in co-creation, while the last one (helping) was identified as a

company-driven practice resulting only in the co-creation of experiences. Carù and Cova (2015)

identified two traits which define these practices. The first trait is their ambivalent nature, which refers

to their ability to result in either co-creation or co-destruction. The second is their relative

unmanageability, which refers to the unsuccessful efforts of the firm to control certain practices. In the

creation of these collective experiences, the firm usually shapes the experience, but the experiences will

not occur if the consumers are not willing to participate. The ultimate represenation of these

experiences and the enactment of the associated practices therefore depend on the consumers'

participation. This participation depends on the firm's ability to engage consumers.

3.2. Firm Co-destruction of Value (Business to Business)

Within service production, value co-destruction could occur within the firm’s network during

business to business interactions or business to consumer interactions and it could be initiated

simultaneously by both interacting parties or by each individually. Vafeas et al. (2016) identified

antecedents to diminished value between client/agency exchange, while Becker et al. (2015) focused on

the co-creation and co-destruction of value in client/consultant interactions. Vafeas et al. (2016)

interviewed both clients and agencies to identify concepts, which were then aggregated to identify five

antecedents to value co-destruction. The antecedents identified (absence of trust, Inadequate

communication, inadequate coordination, inadequate human capital and the power/dependence

balance) could lead to diminished value outcomes and were categorized as client, agency or joint-

situated resources. This study showed that value destruction could be initiated by either the client, the

agency or jointly by the client and the agency. Becker et al. (2015), in their study on business to

business interactions, also showed that both parties could either initiate value destruction individually

or jointly. However, they utilised an approach-avoidance motivation concept, which indicates the urge

of a person to either approach or withdraw from a desired or undesired stimulus. In their study, they

identified stimuli which, when introduced by either party, could induce an ‘approach’ by the recipient

leading to co-creation, or induce ‘avoidance’, leading to co-destruction. They also identified stimuli

(objects, events, possibilities) which, when introduced, could be interpreted either positively or

negatively. Identified stimuli ranged from positive and negative verbal communication (messages and

references) to positive and negative non-verbal comunication, such as smiling or frowning and

maintaining or not maintaining eye contact. The dynamics of interactions between consultants and

clients were also found to pass through various stages of value destruction and value co-formation.

Kantanen (2017) studied how value was co-created or co-destroyed during a communication

improvement programme carried out at a medium-sized family firm. At a point during interaction,

value was temporarily destroyed for the consultant due to lack of awareness of practices within the

organisation. This was during a role playing session between client participants, who chose to

demonstrate a negative case. This initially caused confusion for the client, who was not aware of

practices within the organisation, but ultimately led to a session of co-formation since fruitful

discussions emanated from the event.

Within the literature, other authors have touched on value co-creation and co-destruction in;

project management, where a single case megaproject was analysed and factors such as decision-

making invoked the potential for co-destruction (Smyth et al., 2018); e-government, where the risk of

co-destructive outcomes increases with increasing boundary complexity between collaborating

communities (Uppström and Lönn, 2017); sales, where customer orientation was found to increase

value and a sales orientation was found to destroy value (Singh and Koshy, 2011, Jayashankar et al.,

2019); and in startup businesses, where startups, through their relationships with other firms, co-created

or co-destroyed value (Hasche and Linton, 2018).

3.3. Consumer Co-destruction of Value

What value is to the firm is different to what value is to the consumer (Grönroos and Voima,

2013). Understanding consumer behaviour and psychology (Worthington and Durkin, 2012) is

therefore important if firms are to minimise the consumer’s value-destroying interactions and maximise

the consumer's value-creating potential. Just as in the case of the firms, not much work has been done

to understand the customer's value-destroying potential. Consumers interact with firms at various

points along the value creation chain (Roser et al., 2013) and just as value can be co-created at any

point on the value creation chain, value can also be co-destroyed (before, during and after interactions

Olabode Ogunbodede

(Järvi et al., 2018)). During interaction with the firm, a spectrum of consumers experiencing either

value co-creation or value co-destruction can be found at any point (Stieler et al., 2014). This resonates

with the nature of value, which is individualistic (Gronroos, 2011), and the service dominant

foundational premise, which states that “value is always uniquely and phenomenologically determined

by the beneficiary” (Vargo and Lusch, 2004, Vargo et al., 2008). The consumer therefore plays a very

important part in determining if value is co-destroyed or co-created.

Whether value will be destroyed or created depends on the consumer's behaviour (Kashif and

Zarkada, 2015), which is influenced by their expectations (Plé and Cáceres, 2010, Echeverri and

Skalen, 2011), factors such as values and traits (Ogunbodede et al.), available resources (Smith, 2013)

and the community (Skålén et al., 2015). The consequences of customer behaviour on employee

performance, satisfaction, commitment, and turnover intention was studied by Yi et al. (2011). Yi et al.

identified the positive effects that consumer behaviours have on employee performance, satisfaction

and commitment. Their study focused only on beneficial customer behaviours but they stated that

customer behaviours could take negative forms, such as negative word-of-mouth, or uncooperative and

unprovoked behaviour, which could negatively affect employee satisfaction. Kashif and Zarkada

(2015) also studied value co-destruction between customers and frontline employees. However, they

focused on the negative effects and identified incidents of customer abuse of frontline service

employees during service encounters within the banking sector. This misbehaviour occurs frequently,

has the potential to affect the reputation of the firm and has dire consequences on the firm’s employees

and other customers. They highlighted various motives behind customer misbehaviour and these

include financial gain motives, ego motives and revenge motives. When interviewed, employees of

these organisations attributed skill and time inefficiencies directly to customer misbehaviour incidents.

These incidents also affected the employees' relationships at work and their commitment to remaining

in the same job. Kashif and Zarkada (2015) also discussed the incidents with consumers. A few of

these customers believed their behaviour was appropriate in certain scenarios. They attributed their

actions to failure of the firm to live up to certain expectations.

Expectations play a critical role in determining the value experience of consumers (Woodruff,

1997a). Both the firm and the consumer have certain expectations in relation to their own role and the

role of other actors within the service system (Bateson, 2002). Where there is congruence in the

expectations about the way resources should be utilised during the interaction, value co-creation occurs

(Plé and Cáceres, 2010). In situations where there are discrepancies in the expectations of the way

resources should be integrated within the service system, value co-destruction occurs. Consumers

therefore expect certain value dimensions to be met (Stieler et al., 2014) and the failure of the firm to

meet these expectations results in sub-par experiences for the consumer. Within a service system,

consumers are willing to devote resources in order to meet these value dimensions (Stieler et al., 2014).

Consumers devote material, conditions, self, social and energy resources, while the firm devotes its

people, technology, organisation and information resources (Smith, 2013). When the experience during

the interaction does not meet the expectations of the consumer, the consumer experiences a loss of

resources (Smith, 2013). This resource loss could result in emotional responses (anger, disappointment,

regret, worry and anxiety) or behavioural responses (switching, complaining or negative word of

mouth). The resultant destruction of value affects the wellbeing of the service system. The service

experience between the firm and the customer could also be modified by the presence of other actors

(community). This is discussed in the following section.

3.4. Co-destruction in Multiparty Interactions

The above represents work done on co-destruction within a dyadic perspective and represents co-

destruction in its simplest linear form of provider-consumer interactions. In practice, however, co-

destruction, like co-creation, often occurs in scenarios involving multiple actors (Ekman et al., 2016,

Luo et al., 2019) and the collective intention of multiple actors could have profound effects on

behaviour (Finsterwalder and Kuppelwieser, 2020). As such there is a need to understand value

creation not just for individuals but also within the network the user is embedded in (Čaić et al., 2018).

Work done by Stieler et al. (2014), Kim et al. (2019) and Fyrberg Yngfalk (2013) on interactions

within football matches, albeit from different perspectives, sheds more light on how value co-

destruction occurs in multiparty interactions. Stieler et al. focused on the atmosphere within football

and studied how resources from various actors including spectators, journalists and footballers

contribute to the atmosphere. They argue that individuals expect a certain value dimension to be met

(for example, the expected atmosphere in the stadium, which could relate to any dimension of value

being co-created between the firm and the customer in the presence of other actors). Once this

dimension is not met, co-destruction occurs, which can be measured on an individual level. In addition,

the co-destruction of one dimension may lead to the co-destruction of other dimensions and they

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

identified various value dimensions which are features or services which contribute to the total value of

actors involved (Woodruff, 1997b, Ekman et al., 2016). Finally, they conclude that co-creation or co-

destruction is always a collective experience which involves multiple actors regardless of the

importance of the individual expectations. This collective co-creation or co-destruction experience was

also reported by Kim et al. (2019) in an empirical study on sporting events. Kim et al. (2019) showed

that other consumers’ passion had a positive influence on the focal spectators' social, emotional and

epistemic value and their dysfunctional behaviour had a negative influence on the focal customers'

emotional value, contributing to value co-creation and co-destruction respectively. Fyrberg Yngfalk

(2013) also studied interactions between multiple actors within the football community. By adopting a

socio-culturural perspective, Fyberg Yngfalk identified the diverse interest of multiple actors to study

the effects and implications they have on value creation. Fyrberg Yngfalk highlighted the fact that

actor interactions could introduce resistance. However, this should not be misunderstood to be co-

destruction. Fyrberg argued for the recognition and the creation of meaning as integral parts of every

interaction and consumption practice. From this perspective, resistance could lead to new meaning

creation and innovation and she gave an example of how hooliganism could be converted into

commerical opportunities.

Hiler et al. (2018) studied co-competiton within the multiplayer online role-playing community,

where multiple parties with mutually exclusive goals competed for the rights to co-create with a firm.

Their findings show that when discordant groups are involved, there is a likelihood that value will be

co-destroyed due to their differing abilities and creative disposition. The co-destruction of value in the

presence of multiple actors was also highlighted by Crowther and Donlan (2011) in their study of value

co-creation during marketing events. Their interview with attendees showed that the multiple inputs of

stakeholders across the event contributed to a lack of coherence of purpose and design. This

undermined the value co-creation potential of the event, which would have been attained if congruence

between strategy and design had occurred.

3.5.Co-destruction in Virtual Communities

Understanding how value can be destroyed via virtual communities over the Internet is also

important. The Internet enables new forms of consumer / producer interactions (Fuller et al., 2009) and

virtual communities over the internet can facilitate service delivery (Sawhney et al., 2005). This has

resulted in an increasing number of firms hosting virtual customer environments (Nambisan and Baron,

2009). Whilst these communities enable consumers to co-create freely, Bonsu and Darmody (2008)

argue that they also facilitate the colonisation of collective consumer minds and the commodification of

consumer creativity. Considering the growing importance of these communities and the new forms of

consumer-firm interactions they facilitate, understanding how value can be destroyed within these

communities is important. Within the literature, publications have touched on the potential of virtual

communities to facilitate co-destruction of value through showrooming behaviour (Daunt and Harris,

2017), within luxury brands (Quach and Thaichon, 2017), via social media (Dolan et al., 2016, Dolan et

al., 2019), through counterfeit selling (Quach and Thaichon, 2018), through online shopping (Siddique

et al., 2021) and through online travel communities (Lv et al., 2021).

Dolan et al. (2016) studied the role of social media content in facilitating engagement behaviour

between the firm and its consumers. They identified how content on the platforms could stimulate

positively or negatively valenced engagement levels. The levels of engagement were spread across a

continuum, with the highest level of positive engagement being co-creation and the highest level of

negative engagement being co-destruction, which ultimately results in a destruction of brand value.

Dolan et al.’s work highlights the need to develop frameworks which could help understand co-creation

and co-destruction simultaneously, as opposed to treating them separately, since both could potentially

occur within every interaction. Dolan et al. (2019) also studied tourist complaining practices on social

meda and identified three distict practices which could lead to either co-creation or co-destruction -

solution seeking (when consumers demand explanations following a service breakdown), support

seeking (desire to seek emotional support, sympathy from others) and social engagement (showing

their knowledge by warning or cautioning fellow community members). These practices only lead to

co-destruction when consumers get unsuitable or incongruent responses from the firm when they are

seeking solutions, when social support is not received when they seek support on social media and

when the company tries to resolve or correct warnings provided by the consumer to other consumers

during social engagement.

(Zhang et al., 2018) focused on understanding the conditions under which customer engagement

co-creates or co-destroys value in online channels, identifying people (customers and employees), the

organisation, company competency and technology as factors associated with negatively valenced

customer behaviour. In their study, co-destruction occurs when customers seek revenge or retaliation,

Olabode Ogunbodede

frontline employees lack soft skills or speak negatively about the firm to consumers, technology fails,

the organisation is deceptive or there are long delays due to incompetence. Brand engagement and its

potential for value destruction on Facebook was also studied by Peeroo et al. (2017). Peeroo et al.

(2017) identified two ways in which consumers engage on facebook – consumer to business (C2B) and

consumer to consumer (C2C), both with the potential to co-create or to co-destroy value. Co-

destructive interactions usually take the form of negative word of mouth or complaints in C2B

interactions, while sharing information about other companies' products or open criticism of other

consumers result in co-destruction in C2C interactions. Robertson et al. (2014) investigated how online

medical self-diagnosis has led to customers misdiagnosing themselves and adopting inapropriate

treatments, which could sometimes be fatal. They outline a multi-pronged, multi-stakeholder

perspective to minimise the occurrence of value co-destruction in online self diagnosis. This involves

regulating healthcare information published online and ensuring it meets defined standards and a

second approach, which ensures the compliance of consumers, health care professionals, regulators e-

health providers and industry bodies/non-government organisations.

In contrast to the bulk of the literature, which focuses on the benefits of online innovation

communities, Gebauer et al. (2013) focused on how value can be co-destroyed by highlighting the

negative consequences and dissatisfaction found within these communities. They studied the

dysfunctional behaviours found in online innovation communities and identified factors within these

communities that influence these forms of behaviour. They observed an international online design

contest conducted on a community platform on the internet. This contest was set up by a leading retail

brand in Austria to co-design shopping bags. Following design submission, participants were invited to

vote for and comment on the designs of fellow participants. The final design was selected by a jury

consisting of the CEO of the company, a professional designer and the publisher of Austria's news

magazine with the largest circulation. Following the announcement of the winner, negative discussions

about the winning design emerged. Gebauer et al. (2013) identified dissatisfaction with the outcome,

perceived unfairness due to a lack of transparency by the firm and a sense of community (the

community had developed expectations about what the winning design should be) as the reasons for the

negative reactions since the jury's decisions did not meet their expectations. This led to emotions such

as anger, frustration, irritation, negative word of mouth and a desire for revenge. These negative

opinions were also identified on other social networks. Whilst the firm was able to succcesfully co-

create one dimension of value (successful bag design) it ultimately resulted in the co-destruction of

other value dimensions (dissatisfaction on the part of the consumers, negative comments about the

brand on other social platforms etc).

3.6. Conceptualising the Co-destruction of Value

The lack of attention to co-destruction has been due to the positive connotations associated with

the term value and the positive focus of the foundational premises of the SD logic. This positive

connotation could be linked to a prejudice for the positive outcomes of value formation and, because of

this, experiments have been designed to identify the positive elements of interactions. This has led to

the development of frameworks touching only on co-creation, ignoring the possibility of co-

destruction. With the relatively low number of publications on co-destruction, the concept is not fully

understood and requires more studies to improve its conceptualization and theoretical development.

Although value destruction in the SD logic was highlighted by Plé and Cáceres (2010), who defined

and labelled ‘co-destruction’, misunderstandings about what the concept really is have started emerging

within the literature (Vafeas et al., 2016). To avoid a similar path to that of co-creation, there is a need

to identify the boundaries of the concept and postulate a more fitting definition.

Better understanding of value, resources and how they are integrated in practice will lead to better

understanding of co-destruction. Congruent resource integration in practice results in value co-creation,

while the incongruent integration of resources results in value co-destruction. The resultant creation or

destruction of value depends on how the actors expect their resources to be integrated (Ple, 2016). It is

therefore important to define whose value is being created (Saarijärvi et al., 2013) (the beneficiary)

then we can identify whose value is being destroyed. In a simple dyadic setting between a

provider/firm and a consumer/beneficiary, once the beneficiary has been identified, the expectation of

the beneficiary about the use of their resources should be determined. Typically, this will range

between low expectations and high expectations. During the interaction, the provider will either meet

these expectations, surpass the expectations or leave the beneficiary with unmet expectations. This is

represented on a matrix (Figure 1), with the beneficiary’s expectations on the vertical axis and the

provider's performance on the horizontal axis.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Figure 1: Conceptualising value co-destruction via consumer expectations

It follows, therefore, that as long as the provider meets or exceeds the beneficiary’s expectations

of how their resources should be integrated, value will be co-created. Value will only be co-destroyed

in situations where the beneficiary has high expectations of how their resources should be integrated

but the firm underdelivers on its service promise. Thus, irrespective of the beneficiary’s expectations,

value will always be co-created if the firm exceeds its service promise. In situations where the firm

underdelivers, value will not be destroyed if the beneficiary has low expectations of how their

resources should be integrated.

The locus of value co-destruction depends on the logic being applied. Various logics have been

proposed based on the understanding of who determines value and where value is co-created. The GD

logic puts the firm at the centre of value co-creation, the SD logic puts the customer at the centre, the

service logic stipulates that value is co-created during interactions between the firm and the consumer,

while the CD logic argues in favour of value co-creation within the consumer's sphere. This is

represented in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Value creation paradigms

Irrespective of the adopted logic, value co-destruction can occur at any point. The locus of value

co-destruction can be determined by asking the question ‘whose value is being created?’ Is it the firm,

the consumer or members of the community? Only after this has been determined can we identify

where value is being co-destroyed. The question of whose value is being created is also important

because multiple dimensions of value can be created. For Stieler et al. (2014) this is because value co-

destruction like co-creation does not occur in isolation (i.e. firm/consumer dyad). There are multiple

actors involved who integrate resources to form multiple dimensions of value in practice. The

dimension of value being co-created should be identified before determining which dimension is co-

destroyed. It is also important to note that value co-destruction of one dimension can lead to value co-

destruction of another dimension within a network of multiple actors.

4. FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA

This paper has provided a review of the literature on the co-destruction of value. The review

shows that, unlike co-creation, co-destruction has not received much attention and various areas which

have received ample attention within the co-creation literature have not been studied considering the

Olabode Ogunbodede

possibility of the co-destruction of value. By reviewing articles within the literature, this paper has

identified the state of research on co-destruction. It has also identified key areas which need more

attention within the co-destruction literature. These three areas centre around understanding the firm,

the consumers and interactions between both the firm and the consumers.

4.1. Understanding Firm/Consumer Interactions

Consumers interact with firms at various points along the value creation chain (Roser et al., 2013).

This could be in new product development or service production. At any point on this chain, value can

be co-destroyed or co-created. The nature of consumer involvement and the stage of involvement

determines the vulnerability of the firm to the co-destruction of value. Future research needs to

• Refrain from treating co-destruction and co-creation as separate constructs: Both co-

destruction and co-creation should be seen as likely outcomes of every interaction and

frameworks for both co-destruction and co-creation should be developed simultaneously. More

specific research should be geared towards understanding co-destruction, where it occurs, how

value can be destroyed for and by the firm and the consumer and what other factors contribute to

the co-destruction of value. There is a need to develop scales to measure co-destruction in a similar

manner in which scales have been developed to measure co-creation (Yi and Gong, 2013). It is

also necessary to identify previous research on co-creation with empirical work biased towards

identifying the positives of interactive value formation; these experiments need to be readdressed

to identify the negative side of interactions.

• Focus on the multidimensional nature of value during interactions: Many of the existing

publications focus on isolated dyadic scenarios and study only single dimensions of value co-

created or co-destroyed between firms and consumers. In reality, firm/consumer interactions are

not isolated and multiple dimensions of value are being simultaneously co-created and co-

destroyed. The presence of other stakeholders (community) could also negatively influence the

firm/consumer interactions. Future research could capture this multidimensional nature to give a

true picture of value co-creating and value co-destroying activities.

• Shed more light on understanding consumer participation across various stages on the value

chain: As firms continue to adopt co-creation, consumers will be involved in co-creation with the

firm at different stages and to different degrees (Hoyer et al., 2010). Just as the value creation

potential increases, the possibility of value destruction also increases across these stages.

Researchers could focus on identifying how value can be co-destroyed to highlight to what degree

consumers should be involved in co-creation at different stages

• Highlight the effects of co-destruction. Typically, the literature focuses on highlighting the

antecedents to co-destruction (Corsaro, 2019). Less work has been done to highlight its effects on

the firm and the consumer. Co-destruction could have profound effects on the firm’s brand, the

consumers' loyalty etc, and this could also negatively influence future interactions. Future research

should focus on highlighting how co-destruction by firms affects consumers and vice versa.

4.2. Understanding the Consumer

To ensure effective co-creation, consumers have to participate and their participation depends on

their awareness, perceived role clarity, perceived ability, their expectations (Plé et al., 2010) and their

motivation. This not only determines if consumers will participate or not, but also how effectively they

will participate. In addition, at any given point, various consumers are interacting with the firm. Whilst

value can be co-created for one consumer, value can be co-destroyed for another. It is therefore

important to:

• Understand consumer expectations while interacting with the firm: Value will only be co-

destroyed in situations where the firm does not meet the expectations of the customer (Ple, 2016).

Consumers are a heterogeneous group when it comes to their expectations. Future research should

focus on understanding the reason for differing expectations between customers and how the

firm’s homogeneous offerings can result in value destruction for both the firm and its customers.

This should also seek to make recommendations which will help the firm segment its offerings to

match customers with similar expectations. Besides understanding the expectations of the firm by

the consumer, future research should study the expectations of the consumers by the firm. This will

help understand what contribution and resources the firm expects from its consumers and highlight

if this is optimal for co-creation.

• Understand consumer resources and how they are integrated in practice: Whilst there are

publications touching on consumer resources (Smith, 2013) and practices (Echeverri and

Salomonson, 2017, Echeverri and Skalen, 2011), they do not offer a comprehensive list of all the

resources consumers sacrifice while co-creating with the firm and how they are integrated in

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

practice. A mismatch in resources could result in less than optimal value co-creation, which in

essence is value co-destruction. This could result in negative behaviours which could have serious

consequences for the firm. Future research should be designed to identify the resources sacrificed

by consumers during interactions with the firm. More specifically, a resource map should be

created to identify the resources associated with each stage along the value creation map. This will

help firms better understand consumer reactions and misbehaviours.

• Understand consumer motivations: An understanding of why consumers are motivated to co-

create has been attempted in the literature (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004). However, this has not

been fully studied within the co-destruction literature. Consumers are motivated by various factors.

This could be intrinsic, extrinsic or a combination of the two. More work should be done to

understand why consumers are motivated to seek revenge on firms, why they decide to

intentionally misuse both their resources and the firm’s resources and to understand the benefits of

these actions to the customer. These studies should also reflect the differing motivation patterns

across different touch points e.g. virtual communities, service creation, new product development

etc.

4.3. Understanding the Firm

Just as Sheth and Uslay (2007) identified a spectrum of co-creation involving co-promotion, co-

production, co-pricing, co-design, co-distribution, co-consumption, co-conception, co-outsourcing, co-

disposal and co-maintenance, firms will continue to involve consumers in every aspect of value co-

creation. This also increases their exposure to value destruction. Firms typically have their resources

configured towards firm centred value co-creation, however. Future research should focus on

• Understanding firm resources and processes: Resource configurations and processes within the

firm should be studied to highlight how they can act as barriers to effective co-creation. Firm

resources include people, technology, organisation and information (Chathoth et al., 2014). The

misuse of any of these resources could result in the co-destruction of value for both the firm and its

consumers. Researchers should work with firms to identify resource configurations which result in

less than ideal value propositions and seek to make recommendations which could improve the

firm's value offering. These studies should also focus on understanding how these resource

configurations are integrated in practice, identifying more practices which can result in value co-

destruction. Other factors such as the firm’s strategy, organisational structure and culture should

also be studied to understand how they could contribute to value co-destruction.

• Examine co-destruction in virtual environments: This is also an important area which has not

received much attention. Only a few publications have touched on this within the SD logic. The

internet and related technologies facilitate co-creation and can facilitate interaction between firms

and consumers. Robertson et al. (2014) showed how consumers turn to the Internet for information

and how the original intention of co-created content resulted in co-destruction. Future research

should be directed towards understanding specific areas with prevalent value co-destruction. These

areas, such as within the healthcare industry as identified by (Robertson et al., 2014), should be

studied to understand how they influence consumer decisions and the cost of these decisions to the

firm needs to be identified. The destructive efforts of consumers in these communities could also

be seen positively and more research should be done to see how the value destroying intentions of

consumers could be used to create value for the firm. Virtual communities could also be used in

the dissemination of negative word of mouth. This is a common occurrence across all platforms

with differing impact on the reputation of the firm beyond the originating platform and beyond

virtual communities. More research needs to be done to understand how firms can manage the

effects of such damage to contain it within virtual communities and to reverse the effects of this

damage beyond the virtual communities.

• Study co-destruction between firms: Besides interaction with consumers, firms also interact with

other firms in order to create value for themselves and their stakeholders. However, this often

results in value co-destruction and there is a need to study how these interactions could destroy

value.

Olabode Ogunbodede

References

ALFORD, J. 2016. Co-Production, Interdependence and Publicness: Extending public service-

dominant logic. Public Management Review, 18, 673-691.

BATESON, J. 2002. Are your customers good enough for your service business? The Academy of

Management Executive, 16, 110-120.

BECKER, S. V., AROMAA, E. & ERIKSSON, P. 2015. Client-consultant interaction: the dynamics of

and conflicts in value co-creation and co-destruction. International Journal of Services Technology

and Management, 21, 40-54.

BONSU, S. K. & DARMODY, A. 2008. Co-creating second life: Market-Consumer cooperation in

contemporary economy. Journal of Macromarketing, 28, 355-368.

BRUCE, H. L., WILSON, H. N., MACDONALD, E. K. & CLARKE, B. 2019. Resource integration,

value creation and value destruction in collective consumption contexts. Journal of Business

Research, 103, 173-185.

CABIDDU, F., MORENO, F. & SEBASTIANO, L. 2019. Toxic Collaborations: Co-Destroying Value

in the B2B Context. Journal of Service Research, 0, 1094670519835311.

ČAIĆ, M., ODEKERKEN-SCHRÖDER, G. & MAHR, D. 2018. Service robots: value co-creation and

co-destruction in elderly care networks. Journal of Service Management, 29, 178-205.

CAMILLERI, J. & NEUHOFER, B. 2017. Value co-creation and co-destruction in the Airbnb sharing

economy. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29, 2322-2340.

CARÙ, A. & COVA, B. 2015. Co-creating the collective service experience. Journal of Service

Management, 26, 276-294.

CHATHOTH, P. K., UNGSON, G. R., ALTINAY, L., CHAN, E. S. W., HARRINGTON, R. &

OKUMUS, F. 2014. Barriers affecting organisational adoption of higher order customer

engagement in tourism service interactions. Tourism Management, 42, 181-193.

CONSTANTIN, J. & LUSCH, R. 1994. Understanding Resource Management (The Planning Forum,

Oxford, OH).

CORSARO, D. 2019. Value co-destruction and its effects on value appropriation. Journal of Marketing

Management, 1-28.

CROWTHER, P. & DONLAN, L. 2011. Value-creation space: The role of events in a service-

dominant marketing paradigm. Journal of Marketing Management, 27, 1444-1463.

CUNHA, M. N. 2019. An investigative study of customers’ experience in customized customer contact

services in Oporto hotels.

DAUNT, K. L. & HARRIS, L. C. 2017. Consumer showrooming: Value co-destruction. Journal of

Retailing and Consumer Services, 38, 166-176.

DOLAN, R., CONDUIT, J., FAHY, J. & GOODMAN, S. 2016. Social media engagement behaviour: a

uses and gratifications perspective. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 24, 261-277.

DOLAN, R., SEO, Y. & KEMPER, J. 2019. Complaining practices on social media in tourism: A value

co-creation and co-destruction perspective. Tourism Management, 73, 35-45.

ECHEVERRI, P. & SALOMONSON, N. 2017. Bi-directional and stratified demeanour in value

forming service encounter interactions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 93-102.

ECHEVERRI, P. & SKALEN, P. 2011. Co-creation and co-destruction: A practice-theory based study

of interactive value formation. Marketing Theory, 11, 351-373.

EKMAN, P., RAGGIO, R. D. & THOMPSON, S. M. 2016. Service network value co-creation:

Defining the roles of the generic actor. Industrial Marketing Management, 56, 51-62.

ESPERSSON, M. & WESTRUP, U. 2020. Value Destruction in Swedish Welfare Services: Frontline

Workers’ Impact on Asylum-Seeking Minors’ Possibilities of Creating Value in Early Integration.

International Journal of Public Administration, 43, 115-125.

FARQUHAR, J. D. & ROBSON, J. 2017. Selective demarketing:When customers destroy value.

Marketing Theory, 17, 165-182.

FINSTERWALDER, J. & KUPPELWIESER, V. G. 2020. Intentionality and transformative services:

Wellbeing co-creation and spill-over effects. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 52,

101922.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

FLEISCHMAN, D., RACITI, M. & LAWLEY, M. 2015. Degrees of co-creation: an exploratory study

of perceptions of international students’ role in community engagement experiences. Journal of

Marketing for Higher Education, 25, 85-103.

FULLER, J., MUHLBACHER, H., MATZLER, K. & JAWECKI, G. 2009. Consumer Empowerment

Through Internet-Based Co-creation. J. Manage. Inf. Syst., 26, 71-102.

FYRBERG YNGFALK, A. 2013. ‘It’s not us, it’s them!’ – Rethinking value co-creation among

multiple actors. Journal of Marketing Management, 29, 1163-1181.

GALVAGNO, M. & DALLI, D. 2014. Theory of value co-creation: a systematic literature review.

Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 24, 643-683.

GEBAUER, J., FÜLLER, J. & PEZZEI, R. 2013. The dark and the bright side of co-creation: Triggers

of member behavior in online innovation communities. Journal of Business Research, 66, 1516-

1527.

GRONROOS, C. 2011. Value co-creation in service logic: A critical analysis. Marketing Theory, 11,

279-301.

GRÖNROOS, C. & VOIMA, P. 2013. Critical service logic: making sense of value creation and co-

creation. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 41, 133-150.

HASCHE, N. & LINTON, G. 2018. The value of failed relationships for the development of a Medtech

start-up. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 30, 97-119.

HENNIG-THURAU, T., GWINNER, K. P., WALSH, G. & GREMLER, D. D. 2004. Electronic word-

of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on

the Internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18, 38-52.

HILER, J. L., COOK, L. A. & NORTHINGTON, W. M. 2018. Making inconsistent worlds: a

conceptual framework for co-competition. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 35, 254-263.

HILL, R. P., CAPELLA, M. L., RAPP, J. M. & GENTLEMEN, G. 2016. Antiservice as Guiding

Maxim: Tough Lessons From a Maximum Security Prison. Journal of Service Research, 19, 57-

71.

HOGG, J., WERNER, K. & GRIESE, K.-M. 2021. Conceptualising event value co-destruction and

developing a future agenda for events research. International Journal of Event and Festival

Management, 12, 346-363.

HOLBROOK, M. B. 2006. Consumption experience, customer value, and subjective personal

introspection: An illustrative photographic essay. Journal of business research, 59, 714-725.

HOLBROOK, M. B. & HIRSCHMAN, E. C. 1982. The Experiential Aspects of Consumption:

Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 132-140.

HOYER, W. D., CHANDY, R., DOROTIC, M., KRAFFT, M. & SINGH, S. S. 2010. Consumer

Cocreation in New Product Development. Journal of Service Research, 13, 283-296.

HSU, P.-F., NGUYEN, T. K. & HUANG, J.-Y. 2021. Value co-creation and co-destruction in self-

service technology: A customer’s perspective. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,

46, 101029.

IND, N., FULLER, C. & TREVAIL, C. 2012. Brand together: How co-creation generates innovation

and re-energizes brands, Kogan Page Publishers.

JÄRVI, H., KÄHKÖNEN, A.-K. & TORVINEN, H. 2018. When value co-creation fails: Reasons that

lead to value co-destruction. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 34, 63-77.

JAYASHANKAR, P., JOHNSTON, W. J., NILAKANTA, S. & BURRES, R. 2019. Co-creation of

value-in-use through big data technology-a B2B agricultural perspective. Journal of Business &

Industrial Marketing.

KAARTEMO, V. & KÄNSÄKOSKI, H. 2018. Information and Knowledge Processes in Health Care

Value Co-Creation and Co-Destruction. SAGE Open, 8, 2158244018820482.

KANTANEN, H. 2017. Value co-production through external communication consulting. Corporate

Communications: An International Journal, 22, 455-470.

KASHIF, M. & ZARKADA, A. 2015. Value co-destruction between customers and frontline

employees. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 33, 672-691.

KAUFMANN, H. R., LOUREIRO, S. M. C. & MANARIOTI, A. 2016. Exploring behavioural

branding, brand love and brand co-creation. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 25, 516-

526.

Olabode Ogunbodede

KIM, K., BYON, K. K. & BAEK, W. 2019. Customer-to-customer value co-creation and co-

destruction in sporting events. The Service Industries Journal, 1-23.

LAUD, G., BOVE, L., RANAWEERA, C., LEO, W. W. C., SWEENEY, J. & SMITH, S. 2019. Value

co-destruction: a typology of resource misintegration manifestations. Journal of Services

Marketing.

LEO, C. & ZAINUDDIN, N. 2017. Exploring value destruction in social marketing services. Journal of

Social Marketing, 7, 405-422.

LUO, J., WONG, I. A., KING, B., LIU, M. T. & HUANG, G. 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, 1309-1329.

LV, X., ZHANG, R. & LI, Q. 2021. Value co-destruction: The influence of failed interactions on

members’ behaviors in online travel communities. Computers in Human Behavior, 122, 106829.

M. SMITH, A. 2013. The value co-destruction process: a customer resource perspective. European

Journal of Marketing, 47, 1889-1909.

MAKKONEN, H. & OLKKONEN, R. 2017. Interactive value formation in interorganizational

relationships:Dynamic interchange between value co-creation, no-creation, and co-destruction.

Marketing Theory, 17, 517-535.

MALAR, D. A., ARVIDSSON, V. & HOLMSTROM, J. 2019. Digital Transformation in Banking:

Exploring Value Co-Creation in Online Banking Services in India. Journal of Global Information

Technology Management, 1-18.

MALONE, S., MCKECHNIE, S. & TYNAN, C. 2018. Tourists’ Emotions as a Resource for Customer

Value Creation, Cocreation, and Destruction: A Customer-Grounded Understanding. Journal of

Travel Research, 57, 843-855.

MILLS, G. R. W. & RAZMDOOST, K. 2016. Managing value co-creation/destruction: a longitudinal

education capital programme/project case study. Construction Management and Economics, 34,

286-301.

MONROE, K. B. & KRISHNAN, R. 1985. The effect of price on subjective product evaluations.

Perceived quality, 1, 209-232.

NAMBISAN, S. & BARON, R. A. 2009. Virtual Customer Environments: Testing a Model of

Voluntary Participation in Value Co-creation Activities. Journal of Product Innovation

Management, 26, 388-406.

NEGHINA, C., CANIËLS, M. C. J., BLOEMER, J. M. M. & VAN BIRGELEN, M. J. H. 2015. Value

cocreation in service interactions: Dimensions and antecedents. Marketing Theory, 15, 221-242.

NORMANN, R. 2001. Reframing business: When the map changes the landscape, John Wiley & Sons.

OGUNBODEDE, O., PAPAGIANNIDIS, S. & ALAMANOS, E. Value co-creation and co-destruction

behaviour: Relationship with basic human values and personality traits. International Journal of

Consumer Studies, n/a.

OSEI-FRIMPONG, K., WILSON, A. & OWUSU-FRIMPONG, N. 2015. Service experiences and

dyadic value co-creation in healthcare service delivery: a CIT approach. Journal of Service Theory

and Practice, 25, 443-462.

PALUMBO, R. & MANNA, R. 2018. What if things go wrong in co-producing health services?

Exploring the implementation problems of health care co-production. Policy and Society, 37, 368-

385.

PEEROO, S., SAMY, M. & JONES, B. 2017. Facebook: a blessing or a curse for grocery stores?

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 45, 1242-1259.

PLE, L. 2016. Studying customers' resource integration by service employees in interactional value co-

creation. JOURNAL OF SERVICES MARKETING, 30, 152-164.

PLÉ, L. & CÁCERES, R. 2010. Not always co‐creation: introducing interactional co‐destruction of

value in service‐dominant logic. Journal of Services Marketing, 24, 430-437.

PLÉ, L., LECOCQ, X. & ANGOT, J. 2010. Customer-integrated business models: A theoretical

framework. Management, 13, 226-265.

PRAHALAD, C. K. & RAMASWAMY, V. 2002. The co-creation connection. Strategy and Business,

50-61.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

PRAHALAD, C. K. & RAMASWAMY, V. 2004. Co‐creating unique value with customers. Strategy

& Leadership, 32, 4-9.

PRIOR, D. D. & MARCOS-CUEVAS, J. 2016. Value co-destruction in interfirm relationships: The

impact of actor engagement styles. Marketing Theory, 16, 533-552.

QUACH, S. & THAICHON, P. 2017. From connoisseur luxury to mass luxury: Value co-creation and

co-destruction in the online environment. Journal of Business Research, 81, 163-172.

QUACH, S. & THAICHON, P. 2018. Dark motives-counterfeit selling framework: An investigate on

the supply side of the non-deceptive market. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 36, 245-259.

RAMASWAMY, V. & GOUILLART, F. J. 2010. The power of co-creation: Build it with them to

boost growth, productivity, and profits, Simon and Schuster.

RAMASWAMY, V. & OZCAN, K. 2018. What is co-creation? An interactional creation framework

and its implications for value creation. Journal of Business Research, 84, 196-205.

RAMIREZ, R. 1999. Value co-production: intellectual origins and implications for practice and

research. Strategic Management Journal, 49-65.

RANJAN, K. R. & READ, S. 2014. Value co-creation: concept and measurement. Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, 44, 290-315.

ROBERTSON, N., POLONSKY, M. & MCQUILKEN, L. 2014. Are my symptoms serious Dr

Google? A resource-based typology of value co-destruction in online self-diagnosis. Australasian

Marketing Journal (AMJ), 22, 246-256.

ROSER, T., DEFILLIPPI, R. & SAMSON, A. 2013. Managing your co‐creation mix: co‐creation

ventures in distinctive contexts. European Business Review, 25, 20-41.

SAARIJÄRVI, H., KANNAN, P. K. & KUUSELA, H. 2013. Value co‐creation: theoretical approaches

and practical implications. European Business Review, 25, 6-19.

SÄWE, F. & THELANDER, Å. 2015. The role of frames in a co-creation process. International

Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 7, 442-457.

SAWHNEY, M., VERONA, G. & PRANDELLI, E. 2005. Collaborating to create: The Internet as a

platform for customer engagement in product innovation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19, 4-

17.

SCHAU, H. J., ALBERT M. MUÑIZ, J. & ARNOULD, E. J. 2009. How Brand Community Practices

Create Value. Journal of Marketing, 73, 30-51.

SHETH, J. N. & USLAY, C. 2007. Implications of the revised definition of marketing: from exchange

to value creation. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 26, 302-307.

SIDDIQUE, J., SHAMIM, A., NAWAZ, M., FAYE, I. & REHMAN, M. 2021. Co-creation or Co-

destruction: A Perspective of Online Customer Engagement Valence. Frontiers in Psychology, 11.

SINGH, R. & KOSHY, A. 2011. Does salesperson's customer orientation create value in B2B

relationships? Empirical evidence from India. Industrial Marketing Management, 40, 78-85.

SKÅLÉN, P., PACE, S. & COVA, B. 2015. Firm-brand community value co-creation as alignment of

practices. European Journal of Marketing, 49, 596-620.

SMITH, A. M. 2013. The value co-destruction process: a customer resource perspective. European

Journal of Marketing, 47, 1889-1909.

SMYTH, H., LECOEUVRE, L. & VAESKEN, P. 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, 170-183.

SNYDER, H. 2019. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal

of Business Research, 104, 333-339.

STHAPIT, E. 2018. My bad for wanting to try something unique: sources of value co-destruction in the

Airbnb context. Current Issues in Tourism, 1-4.

STHAPIT, E. & BJÖRK, P. 2018. Towards a better understanding of interactive value formation:

Three value outcomes perspective. Current Issues in Tourism, 1-14.

STHAPIT, E. & BJÖRK, P. 2019. Sources of value co-destruction: Uber customer perspectives.

Tourism Review.

STHAPIT, E. & JIMÉNEZ-BARRETO, J. 2018. You never know what you will get in an Airbnb: poor

communication destroys value for guests. Current Issues in Tourism, 1-4.

Olabode Ogunbodede

STIELER, M., WEISMANN, F. & GERMELMANN, C. C. 2014. Co-destruction of value by

spectators: the case of silent protests. European Sport Management Quarterly, 14, 72-86.

STORBACKA, K., FROW, P., NENONEN, S. & PAYNE, A. 2012. Designing business models for

value co-creation.

UPPSTRÖM, E. & LÖNN, C.-M. 2017. Explaining value co-creation and co-destruction in e-

government using boundary object theory. Government Information Quarterly, 34, 406-420.

VAFEAS, M., HUGHES, T. & HILTON, T. 2016. Antecedents to value diminution: A dyadic

perspective. Marketing Theory, 16, 469-491.

VARGO, S. L. & LUSCH, R. F. 2004. Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of

Marketing, 68, 1-17.

VARGO, S. L. & LUSCH, R. F. 2008. From goods to service(s): Divergences and convergences of

logics. Industrial Marketing Management, 37, 254-259.

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, 5-23.

VARGO, S. L., MAGLIO, P. P. & AKAKA, M. A. 2008. On value and value co-creation: A service

systems and service logic perspective. European Management Journal, 26, 145-152.

WILLIAMS, B. N., KANG, S.-C. & JOHNSON, J. 2016. (Co)-Contamination as the Dark Side of Co-

Production: Public value failures in co-production processes. Public Management Review, 18,

692-717.

WOODALL, T. 2003. Conceptualising'value for the customer': An attributional, structural and

dispositional analysis. Academy of marketing science review, 2003, 1.

WOODRUFF, R. B. 1997a. Customer value: the next source for competitive advantage. Journal of the

academy of marketing science, 25, 139-153.

WOODRUFF, R. B. 1997b. Customer value: The next source for competitive advantage. Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, 25, 139.

WOODRUFF, R. B. & FLINT, D. J. 2006. Marketing’s service-dominant logic and customer value.

The service-dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate, and directions, 183-195.

WORTHINGTON, S. & DURKIN, M. 2012. Co-destruction of value in context: Cases from retail

banking. The Marketing Review, 12, 291-307.

YI, Y. & GONG, T. 2013. Customer value co-creation behavior: Scale development and validation.

Journal of Business Research, 66, 1279-1284.

YI, Y., NATARAAJAN, R. & GONG, T. 2011. Customer participation and citizenship behavioral

influences on employee performance, satisfaction, commitment, and turnover intention. Journal of

Business Research, 64, 87-95.

YIN, J., QIAN, L. & SHEN, J. 2018. From value co-creation to value co-destruction? The case of

dockless bike sharing in China. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment.

ZEITHAML, V. A. 1988. Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model

and Synthesis of Evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52, 2-22.

ZEITHAML, V. A. & BITNER, M. J. 1996. Services Marketing, McGraw Hill.

ZHANG, L., TONG, H., DEMIREL, H. O., DUFFY, V. G., YIH, Y. & BIDASSIE, B. 2015. A

practical model of value co-creation in healthcare service. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 200-207.

ZHANG, T., LU, C., TORRES, E. & CHEN, P.-J. 2018. Engaging customers in value co-creation or

co-destruction online. Journal of Services Marketing, 32, 57-69.

ZWASS, V. 2010. Co-Creation: Toward a Taxonomy and an Integrated Research Perspective.

International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 15, 11-48.