Value co-destruction: Problems and solutions

Q1 Business, Management and Accounting
Matthew Alexander, Niklas Vallström
{"title":"Value co-destruction: Problems and solutions","authors":"Matthew Alexander,&nbsp;Niklas Vallström","doi":"10.1007/s13162-023-00269-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The concept of value co-creation (VCC) is central to service-dominant logic (SDL) and forms its second axiom, namely that “Value is cocreated by multiple actors, always including the beneficiary” (Vargo &amp; Lusch, 2016, p.8). In parallel with the evolution of VCC in SDL, the term “value co-destruction” (VCD) has also emerged within the services and marketing literature (Echeverri &amp; Skålén, 2011; Plé &amp; Cáceres, 2010). Value co-destruction is pitched as a reverse concept to VCC—another side of the same coin (Plé, 2017)—capturing how interactions, practices, and resource integrations between actors might have negative impacts on value formation. Research on VCD has both expanded and fragmented (Echeverri &amp; Skålén, 2021), but the concept has not been subject to the same scrutiny as VCC. In this article, we question the logic underpinning VCD conceptualization and problematize its use. We articulate three specific problems: first, the need to view VCC as a normative statement; second, a logical flaw in how VCD captures negative outcomes; and third, an issue with the “co” in co-destruction. We offer two solutions for researchers in this area: first, given that VCC is representative of a metatheory, we present mid-range theories as providing opportunities for exploring the role of valence in interactive service experiences; second, we identify literature that presents a continuum of contrasting negative and positive value outcomes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7786,"journal":{"name":"AMS Review","volume":"13 3-4","pages":"200 - 210"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13162-023-00269-z.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AMS Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13162-023-00269-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Business, Management and Accounting","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The concept of value co-creation (VCC) is central to service-dominant logic (SDL) and forms its second axiom, namely that “Value is cocreated by multiple actors, always including the beneficiary” (Vargo & Lusch, 2016, p.8). In parallel with the evolution of VCC in SDL, the term “value co-destruction” (VCD) has also emerged within the services and marketing literature (Echeverri & Skålén, 2011; Plé & Cáceres, 2010). Value co-destruction is pitched as a reverse concept to VCC—another side of the same coin (Plé, 2017)—capturing how interactions, practices, and resource integrations between actors might have negative impacts on value formation. Research on VCD has both expanded and fragmented (Echeverri & Skålén, 2021), but the concept has not been subject to the same scrutiny as VCC. In this article, we question the logic underpinning VCD conceptualization and problematize its use. We articulate three specific problems: first, the need to view VCC as a normative statement; second, a logical flaw in how VCD captures negative outcomes; and third, an issue with the “co” in co-destruction. We offer two solutions for researchers in this area: first, given that VCC is representative of a metatheory, we present mid-range theories as providing opportunities for exploring the role of valence in interactive service experiences; second, we identify literature that presents a continuum of contrasting negative and positive value outcomes.

价值共损:问题与解决方案
价值共创(VCC)的概念是服务主导逻辑(SDL)的核心,并构成其第二条公理,即 "价值由多个参与者共同创造,其中始终包括受益者"(Vargo & Lusch, 2016, p.8)。在 SDL 中 VCC 演化的同时,"价值共建"(VCD)一词也在服务和营销文献中出现(Echeverri & Skålén, 2011; Plé & Cáceres, 2010)。价值共毁 "是一个与 "价值共创 "相反的概念--同一枚硬币的另一面(Plé,2017)--反映了行为者之间的互动、实践和资源整合如何对价值形成产生负面影响。VCD 的研究既有扩展也有割裂(Echeverri & Skålén, 2021),但这一概念并未受到与 VCC 相同的审查。在本文中,我们质疑 VCD 概念化的逻辑,并对其使用提出质疑。我们阐述了三个具体问题:第一,需要将 VCC 视为规范性声明;第二,VCD 在如何捕捉负面结果方面存在逻辑缺陷;第三,共同毁灭中的 "共同 "存在问题。我们为这一领域的研究人员提供了两个解决方案:首先,鉴于 VCC 是一种元理论的代表,我们提出了中程理论,为探索价值在互动服务体验中的作用提供了机会;其次,我们确定了一些文献,这些文献提出了负面和正面价值结果对比的连续统一体。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
AMS Review
AMS Review Business, Management and Accounting-Marketing
CiteScore
14.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The AMS Review is positioned to be the premier journal in marketing that focuses exclusively on conceptual contributions across all sub-disciplines of marketing. It publishes articles that advance the development of market and marketing theory.The AMS Review is receptive to different philosophical perspectives and levels of analysis that range from micro to macro. Especially welcome are manuscripts that integrate research and theory from non-marketing disciplines such as management, sociology, economics, psychology, geography, anthropology, or other social sciences. Examples of suitable manuscripts include those incorporating conceptual and organizing frameworks or models, those extending, comparing, or critically evaluating existing theories, and those suggesting new or innovative theories. Comprehensive and integrative syntheses of research literatures (including quantitative and qualitative meta-analyses) are encouraged, as are paradigm-shifting manuscripts.Manuscripts that focus on purely descriptive literature reviews, proselytize research methods or techniques, or report empirical research findings will not be considered for publication.  The AMS Review does not publish manuscripts focusing on practitioner advice or marketing education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信