Journal of Strategic Marketing

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsm20

A systematic review of the dark side of CRM: the

need for a new research agenda

Bang Nguyen , Faten Jaber & Lyndon Simkin

To cite this article: Bang Nguyen , Faten Jaber & Lyndon Simkin (2020): A systematic review of
the dark side of CRM: the need for a new research agenda, Journal of Strategic Marketing, DOI:
10.1080/0965254X.2019.1642939

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2019.1642939

Published online: 12 Jun 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjsm20
JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING
https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2019.1642939

A systematic review of the dark side of CRM: the need for

a new research agenda
Bang Nguyena,b, Faten Jaberc and Lyndon Simkind
a
Department of Entrepreneurship and Relationship Management, University of Southern Denmark,
Kolding, Denmark; bSchool of Business, East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai, China;
c
Business and Management, Regent’s University London, London, UK; dCentre for Business in Society,
Coventry University, Coventry, UK

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Technology provides businesses with the opportunity to better Received 16 October 2018
engage with customers, but the speed and scope of transforma- Accepted 7 July 2019
tion in customer management have triggered a dark side, affecting KEYWORDS
people, companies and societies. Research is needed to structure Dark side; relationship
and manage the dark side concept more systematically, consider- marketing; customer
ing aspects of dark side behaviours in relation to customer rela- management; distrust;
tionship management. Marketers frequently cite research on unfairness; CRM
surveillance, cyber resilience, the dark web, theft by customers/
staff, the illicit monetisation of data to third parties, and many
other topics as examples of the dark side. The paper reviews the
current state of the research and practice regarding the dark side
of CRM and explores the dimensions and consequences.
A conceptual framework is devised, which captures four important
drivers of the dark side – namely unfairness, distrust, opportunism
and lack of transparency. The theoretical and managerial implica-
tions are discussed.

1. Introduction
In today’s digital age, information and data are critical to sustainable competitive
advantage (Van Tonder & Petzer, 2018) and organisations rely on customer relationship
management (CRM) to generate a meaningful analysis of customer data (e.g. Chatterjee,
Ghosh, Chaudhuri, & Nguyen, 2019). CRM is an approach to collecting, analysing and
using customer data to manage an organisation’s interaction with current and potential
customers (e.g. Lim, Kim, Kim, Kim, & Maglio, 2019). There is no doubt that using CRM is
beneficial to companies and customers alike (Cambra-Fierro, Centeno, Olavarria, &
Vazquez-Carrasco, 2017; Martin, 2016). With the advent of technologies such as social
media, big data and Artificial Intelligence, new ways of managing data exist that were
not previously conceivable (Payne & Frow, 2013). These new technologies have provided
CRM with opportunities to sustain livelihoods, strengthen societies and improve the
world. For example, people are now more than ever connected via social media;
organisations have ability to customise offerings that suit the needs of the individuals;
and life is more convenient through more efficient logistical processes. However, as

CONTACT Bang Nguyen bang.london@gmail.com

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 B. NGUYEN ET AL.

a marketing tool, CRM has also taken a detour and used customer data and information
to take advantage of customers, employees, businesses and the environment surround-
ing them (Ghoshal, 2005; Grayson & Ambler, 1999; Payne & Frow, 2013). Researchers
label this phenomenon of non-benign outcomes subsequent to harnessing technology
in managing customer data as the dark side of CRM (e.g. Abosag, Yen, & Tynan, 2015;
Nguyen, Simkin, & Canhoto, 2015).
Concerns about the dark side of CRM are at worst ignored and at best considered as an
inconvenient afterthought. Social media platforms have empowered people to take a stand
against misbehaving stakeholders, whether these are customers, businesses or even some-
times policymakers (Abdelhadi, Foster, & Whysall, 2014). Journalists have criticised businesses
for not questioning and reacting to the dark side of CRM – these criticisms directed at
organisations such as Facebook and the NHS (Wong, 2018a; McGoogan 2017). In the well-
known case, Facebook has been blamed for ‘cloistering users in filter bubbles, facilitating the
proliferation of misinformation, allowing foreign interference in national elections, and exploit-
ing human psychology for profit’ (Wong, 2018b). In the NHS case, the largest health organisa-
tion in the world was criticised for sharing 1.6m identifiable patient data with DeepMind (a
Google-owned artificial intelligence company). Such headlines in the media raise concerns
about data protection and privacy amongst the public.
Any organisation can project dark side behaviour, but they are often slow in acknowl-
edging its possibility. Governments around the world reacted to public concerns about
data use with new data protection laws. For example, the EU introduced and adopted
the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) law in 2018, which aims at bringing
better transparency, protecting individuals’ rights, and allowing the growth of the digital
economy. Under these contexts, many marketing journals have issued calls for papers
that focus on discussing the role of marketing in the digital economy. For example, the
Journal of Marketing has recently issued a call for papers titled ‘Better Marketing for
a Better World’ and Journal of Academy of Marketing Science has issued a call for papers
titled ‘Innovating in the Digital Economy: Leveraging Technology to Create Value for
Consumers and Firms’. Along this line, the main theme of the Academy of Marketing
Conference in 2019 is titled ‘When you tire of marketing you tire of life’.
Despite the growing popularity of the studies focusing on the dark side of CRM
(e.g. Grandinetti, 2017), studies providing a state-of-the-art understanding of theore-
tical and empirical evidences regarding this mechanism, its drivers and consequences
are not available. Hence, the field of CRM’s dark side noticeably lacks an integrative
extensive review of research findings to this point (Nguyen et al., 2015). This is
mainly due to the complex nature of the phenomena, as CRM’s dark side literature
is spread across a broad set of domains, covering bordering areas as information
system, management psychology, sociology and economy. Moreover, the field of
CRM is evolving at high velocity to keep up with innovative marketing practices
(e.g. Internet of things, big data, social media, etc.). Against this fragmentary back-
ground, a systematic literature review would be beneficial to help academic and
practitioner communities keep track of the field’s development, which can be outside
their main area of expertise, and would steer the ongoing research agenda. In an
attempt to develop a framework around these different issues on the dark side of
CRM, this paper thus presents the first ever systematic literature review of CRM’s dark
side by asking the question: What are the challenges in managing the dark side of
 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING 3

CRM in terms of the psychological drivers of the dark side and the behavioural
consequences of the dark side? By synthesising previous research findings using
a systematic literature review method, this paper combines often isolated CRM’s
dark side aspects into a big picture framework, which plays an indispensable role
in providing a better understanding of the phenomenon to academics and
practitioners.

2. Method
This research presents a systematic literature review of the dark side of CRM, in which an
extended search and objective procedure of evaluating available sources relevant to the
research question are employed. Systematic literature reviews are often used to con-
solidate extant research by producing an unbiased, up-to-date, integrative view of key
themes and research findings relevant to a topic area (Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003).
By doing so, systematic reviews have some notable advantages over ad-hoc reviews
(Stros and Lee, 2015). Although this methodology does not come without any chal-
lenges, such as difficulties of synthesising a large number of sources, it was necessary to
employ this method to consolidate the state or research in the broad area of the dark
side of CRM.
This study follows the five-step approach developed by Denyer and Transfield
(2009) to review the development of knowledge in the area of CRM dark side:
question formulation, locating studies, study selection and evaluation, analysis and
synthesis and reporting and using the results.
First, a well-designed research question is essential to guide our systematic review of
CRM’s dark side. Evaluating the side effect of CRM usage in the big data era is a complex
process that tends to involve complex elements. A key distinctive feature to the analysis
is the focus on exploring the dynamic relationship between business, technology and
consumers in the society and the negative outcomes that occur over time as CRM
becomes more embedded within the social context. The systematic procedure involves
a funnelling process, and the literature review in this paper is a manifestation of the
funnel. The funnel involves a large number of studies at the top and relatively fewer
studies at the bottom. At the locating studies stage, the key initiative is to locate general
directions in the literature to set the parameters for more detailed searches in the next
step. Thus, a broad literature database search (Google Scholar, EBSCO, Scopus and Web
of Science) of the ‘dark side’ and ‘customer relationship management’ keywords yielded
in 450 unique sources.
The study selection and evaluation step includes identifying i) time range ii)
journal type and iii) key themes (Newbert, 2007). First, the time range selected for
our search in the literature was between 1999–2019 since CRM has attracted scho-
lars’ attention during that period. Second, this study examined peer-reviewed aca-
demic journals only; books and conferences were excluded from our search. Applying
these two criteria has yielded in 386 unique hits. Third, the 386 hits were examined
and narrowed down based on the relevance of the hit, number of citations and
journal ranking to 73 hits.
4 B. NGUYEN ET AL.

2.1. Analysis and synthesis

In order to identify the key themes involved with the topic of the dark side of CRM, a text
analytics tool was used; VOS (visualisation of similarities) viewer developed by (Van Eck,
Waltman, Dekker, & van den Berg, 2010). This tool was used to code and visualise the
abstracts and keywords of the 73 hits. Based on the analysis of interrelated key themes of
the 73 hits, we extend our search coverage to locate additional relevant studies that did not
appear in our previous search in the literature. These themes included studies on unfairness,
adverse consumer behaviour, transparency, data privacy and social capital/economy. The
collation of critical sources relevant to these themes led to a total of 159 hits. Table 1
idenetifies the journals leading in the field of CRM’s dark side. The journals are ordered
according to the number of publications and citations.
Marketing journals led the top journals in Table 1.1 However, journals from other
disciplines including general management, information management and psychology
also featured strongly. Journal of Marketing led the table as it produced 18 articles discuss-
ing the dark side of CRM with 4439 citations. To more deeply analyse the results, the authors
then developed a graphical mapping of the bibliographic material (Cobo, López-
Herrera, Herrera-Viedma, & Herrera, 2011; Sinkovics, 2016) using the freely available software
VOSviewer (Van Eck & Waltman, 2010). VOS viewer collects bibliographic data, providing
graphical maps in terms of -citations coauthorship and co-occurrence of text in the abstracts
of a pool of papers. VOSviewer has become a well-known software used by researchers
publishing their articles at the most prestigious journals (e.g. Martínez-López,
Merigó, Valenzuela-Fernández, & Nicolás, 2018 at the Journal of Marketing).
VOSviewer was used to rank the most influential interrelated citations of the selected
hits and re-analyse the key themes of the 159 hits using VOSviewer software. The main

Table 1. Journals leading on the dark side of CRM.

Rank Journal No. of articles Impact Factor Citations Index Weight
1 Journal of Marketing 18 7.33 4439 0.11
2 Journal of Services Marketing 15 2.4 807 0.09
3 Industrial Marketing Management 14 3.67 644 0.09
4 Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 10 8.48 966 0.06
5 European Journal of Marketing 7 1.49 887 0.04
6 Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 7 1.83 231 0.04
7 Journal of Business Research 6 2.5 197 0.04
8 International Journal of Research in Marketing 6 2.59 83 0.04
9 Journal of Marketing Management 5 2.22 39 0.03
10 Journal of Service Research 3 6.84 921 0.02
11 Journal of Retailing 3 5.48 496 0.02
12 Journal of Marketing Research 3 3.85 366 0.02
13 Marketing Science 3 2.79 289 0.02
14 Information Systems Journal 3 4.26 138 0.02
15 Information Systems Research 3 2.3 59 0.02
17 Journal of Applied Psychology 2 4.64 261 0.01
18 Industrial Management & Data Systems 2 2.94 141 0.01
19 Marketing Science 2 2.79 79 0.01
20 Journal of Consumer Psychology 2 4.42 66 0.01
21 International Journal of Production Economics 2 4.4 53 0.01
16 Journal of Consumer Marketing 2 1.26 45 0.01
22 Journal of Advertising 2 2.88 42 0.01
23 Management Science 2 3.54 34 0.01
24 Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 2 2.91 9 0.01
25 Journal of Service Management 2 3.41 5 0.01
26–41 Others 53 - - 0.33
 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING 5

themes were then synthesised based on the realistic evaluation system developed by Tilley
and Pawson (1997) cited in Denyer, Tranfield and Aken (2008). The realistic evaluation
system suggests that outcomes can be contingent on contexts, interventions and mechan-
isms (Vafeas, 2015). This system assumes that an intervention/social change (I) in a context
(C) stimulates a mechanism (M) which generates an outcome. Hence, mechanisms are
triggered when interventions are planted in an appropriate context. Consequently,
a complex intervention can allow different mechanisms that trigger diverse outcomes in
different contexts due to contextual factors such as personal, organisational, economic and
political settings. Following the realistic evaluation approach and in light of the focus of this
research, a conceptual model summarising the themes raising from the literature is
summarised in Figure 1. The contexts for interventions in this research are translated as
CRM implementation contexts (weak strategic context and overreliance on technology) and
the interventions (I) in are mapped to the psychological drivers that yield to the dark side
behaviours (unfairness, distruct, opportunism and lack of transperancy). The mechanisms,
in this research, are the negative behaviours expressed by consumers or businesses. Finally,
the expected outcomes are considered as the subsequent critical issues in the marketing
landscape (lack of success in implementing CRM and negative hostile views of marketing).
The remainder of this paper reports on the findings of the descriptive and thematic analysis
of the selected previous studies.

3. Findings
3.1. The importance of context
CRM pledges to create mutually beneficial relationships that improve the customer
experience and loyalty (Payne & Frow, 2005; Nguyen & Mutum, 2012. Yet, researchers
report that businesses continue to use advanced technologies in CRM for their benefits
(Jayachandran, Sharma, Kaufman, & Raman, 2005), and with less concern for the

Figure 1. The realistic evaluation system of the dark side of CRM.

6 B. NGUYEN ET AL.

consumers (Boulding, Staelin, Ehret, & Johnston, 2005; Haenlein, 2017). Hence, there is
a growing awareness of fundamental concerns that have to be addressed if CRM hopes
are to be realised (Mukherjee & Nath, 2007). Poor application of CRM and deliberate or
unintentional breaches by businesses, as service providers, are sabotaging customer
relationships (Payne & Frow, 2013). While investments in CRM is climbing, trust in
manufacturers (food industry, pharmaceuticals etc.), retailers and service providers (retail
banking, insurance companies etc.) and the media (press, advertising etc.) is declining
(Huang & Wang, 2013).
The main concern is that implementing CRM may exploit customers’ vulnerabilities
instead of developing a balance of power and win–win situations (Wong, Chan, Ngai, &
Oswald, 2009). As a result, new forms of information asymmetry, vulnerability, privacy
concerns, and potential causes of distrust are emerging. These challenges are dymaically
changing in response to the development of new technologies (big data, internet of
things, 5G, etc.). Of course, technology is not deceptive and manipulative in itself.
However, without considerations to trust and fairness at the strategic level when
implementing CRM intiatives, problems are likely to occur (Phan & Vogel, 2010). For
example, investing in CRM tools that lead to superior customised advertising may not
suffice, if other areas such as privacy and fairness are not considered as important. In
certain industries, including mobile phone services, banks, video stores, book-
purchasing clubs, car rental companies, health clubs and credit card companies, some
businesses infuriate customers by deliberately binding them with contracts, exploiting
them with fees or bewildering them with fine print (Frow, Payne, Wilkinson, & Young,
2011; McGovern & Moon, 2007). In such contexts, a strategic focus on long-term
development of customer relationships may have been dismissed over a short-term
goal to increase profits (Daunt & Harris, 2012). This can create a dysfunctional vicious
cycle, leading from ‘transparent, customer-centric strategies for delivering value . . . [to]
opaque, company-centric strategies for extracting it’ (McGovern & Moon, 2007, p. 80).
Weak support for CRM from the strategic level that emphasises good relationship-
building practices, perhaps coupled with an overreliance on CRM as a sales tool, provide
fertile ground to dark side behavior by service providers and customers (Müller, 2014).
Hence, having a clear strategic orientation of CRM plays a vital role in giving its
implemenation a purpose away from immoral purposes such as control and unfairness
and makes an allowance for ecological, economical and social issues in CRM strategy
(Cambra-Fierro et al., 2017). This can help firms balance profitability and commercialisa-
tion with sustainability and social responsibility. Therefore, by involving management, it
is possible to benchmark best practices and avoid dark side behaviour from the inside
out, in order to achieve sustainable competitive advantages and contribute to higher
levels of goodwill and an improved reputation (Crosby & Johnson, 2001).

3.2. Psychological drivers of the dark side

In this section, we review the literature on the various psychological interventions
adopted by service providers, which eventually instigate dark side behaviors by con-
sumers. We look at the drivers that distinguishes a merely dissatisfactory experience for
a consumer to one likely to perpetuate and lead to subsequent and undesirable
behaviour, such as revenge and retaliation.
 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING 7

3.2.1. Unfairness – understanding negative effects

Unfairness is defined as a consumer’s assessment of whether the difference (or lack of
difference) between a seller’s offering and the offering of a comparable other party is
unreasonable, unacceptable or unjustifiable (Bolton et al., 2003; Lee-Wingate, 2015; Xia,
Monroe, & Cox, 2004). In general, perceptions of unfairness induce dissatisfaction
(Herrmann, Xia, Monroe, & Huber, 2007; Van den Bos, Wilke, Lind, & Vermunt, 1998)
and customers with a grudge may end up ending their relationships with the business
and/or seek retribution through negative word of mouth or revenge (e.g. Campbell,
1999; Ren & Quan, 2012). The cry of unfairness is common in the marketplace and
pricing is a marketing element that can easily provoke such cries (Reynolds & Harris,
2009). Given the potential damage of unfairness and its negative implications on society,
it is important to understand how consumers form these perceptions of unfairness
(Müller, 2014). As businesses embrace CRM and utilise customer knowledge, discrepan-
cies and inequality in the way firms treat their customers are likely to evolve. An
important question to ask here is: when are discrepancies in the way we treat customers
perceived to be unfair? This is not an easy question to answer, because the CRM involves
providing unique tailored value for each individual customer. The intention of CRM is to
effectively develop and manage relationships with customers; however, evidence shows
that cases of inequality arise from this approach (Thompson, 2013).
A recent study of human behaviour suggests that the concept of inequality being
repellent to people is not very accurate and that, instead, what people are concerned
about is unfairness. In other words, ‘people prefer fair inequality to unfair equality’
(Starmans, Sheskin, & Bloom, 2017, p. 1). Consequently, acknowledging the unfair
consequences of CRM may be the challenge that matters the most for businesses.
Still, it is difficult to have a discussion of what it is that renders an inequality as
a matter of unfairness or injustice, since powerful interests are at stake. It seems that
building customer–firm relationships has created a skewed development primarily for
the marketer’s benefit, secondarily for profitable consumers, but at the expense of, or
sacrificing, the well-being of the consumers who are deemed less profitable.
CRM may estrange relationships with not so profitable customers because of its
approach in differential treatment (Fernandes & Calamote, 2016). This is what Nguyen
(2011) labelled as the CRM paradox. Businesses are at best ambivalent and at worst
dismissive of this paradox. This approach should be revised to reflect on a deeper
understanding of unfairness and inequality, which requires businesses to concentrate
more on helping those less privileged who, via a lack of fairness, are unable to improve
their state. One danger of unfairness is that it often prompt negative attitudinal and
behavioural consequences. The worries about the consequences of unfairness extend
beyond to consider its influence on trust (Fernandes & Calamote, 2016), which we will
discuss in the following section.

3.2.2. Distrust – insecurities in relationships

Trust has been defined as a multidimensional construct (Johnson & Grayson, 2005;
Miyamoto & Rexha, 2004; Touré-Tillery & McGill, 2015), and studies often discuss the
antecedents of trust at two dimensions/levels (Johnson & Grayson, 2005), namely, perfor-
mance-related trust and affective-related trust. Performance/cognitive-based trust refers to the
confidence, willingness or intention of a party to rely on a partner’s competence, reliability/
8 B. NGUYEN ET AL.

credibility and promptness in meeting their obligations (Sekhon et al., 2013). Affective-based
trust is the confidence a party places in another party based on the feelings and emotions
generated by the caring, empathy, politeness, similarity and concern for the other party,
demonstrated in their interaction (Johnson & Grayson, 2005).
Friend et al. (2010) scrutinise distrust instead of trust to summarise that distrust
emerges when one party predicts that his/her partner’s future action and behaviours
involve not fulfilling promises. Distrust that is affect-based is characterised by feelings of
insecurity and perceived weakness of the relationship (Johnson & Grayson, 2005), often
diminishing interpersonal liking (causing disliking), and weakening a party’s faith
because the unfulfilled expectations suggests that the relational context will then act
as an immoral control on the behaviour of parties (Fernandes & Calamote, 2016).
Without trust, no long-lasting relationship between providers and customers is likely
to develop (ibid). Indeed, distrust becomes more severe as partners’ vulnerability,
situation uncertainty and information asymmetry between providers and customers
increase (Aurier & N’Goala, 2010). According to researchers, outcomes of distrust include:
(1) Worsened cooperation: Distrust increases feelings of uncertainty and risk, and thus
acts to engender decreased cooperation between relationship members (Britton & Rose,
2004); (2) Decreased commitment: Distrust decreases commitment and customers
become selective to only certain trustworthy parties because commitment results in
vulnerability (Ganesan, Brown, Mariadoss, & Ho, 2010); (3) Reduced relationship duration:
Distrust discourages further investment in a long-term relationship, reducing the pro-
pensity for future business, and often focuses on short-term gains. Thus, opportunistic
behaviour and self-interest may be more common when distrust is present (Ballester &
Aleman, 2001; Ganesan et al., 2010; Benos, Kalogeras, de Ruyter, & Wetzels, 2018). (4)
Lower quality: Disputes among parties where there is an absence of trust cannot be
solved in an efficient and amicable way, and in these situations, disputes are perceived
as signals of future difficulties and usually bring about relationship determination
(Britton & Rose, 2004; Singh & Sirdeshmukh, 2000).

3.2.3. Opportunism
Opportunism is a business issue that has been addressed in economics and marketing
literature as an important feature of transaction cost analysis and market governance
theories (Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler, 1994). A considerable body of studies has investi-
gated opportunism’s role in increasing transition costs and impairing trust, commitment
and inter-firm cooperation (e.g. Crosno & Dahlstrom, 2008; Wang & Yang; 2013). In the
seminal work of Williamson (1985, p. 47), he argues that opportunism is a part of human
nature and defines opportunism in terms of, ‘the incomplete or distorted disclosure of
information, especially to calculated efforts to mislead, distort, disguise, obfuscate, or
otherwise confuse’. Wathne and Heide (2000) define opportunism as observed behaviour
inconsistent with some prior contracts or agreements whether they are explicit or relational.
Opportunism is not just self-interest-seeking, which can be morally good, but may be
accompanied by deceptive and manipulative tactics. Although research on opportunism
is fairly extensive, the findings and discussions of prior research mostly relate to interfirm
(Zhu, Su, & Shou, 2017), and marketing channels or business-to-business contexts (Liu, Li, &
Zhang, 2010). Still, empirical studies indicate that opportunistic behaviour also arises in the
business-to-consumer context (Andreson & Jap, 2005; Frow et al., 2011).
 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING 9

According to Romar (2004), opportunism is an internal and external issue, still its
solution should start from inside and internally. The implementation of CRM is a change
that could bring uncertainties. Previous research warns us from uncertainties in organi-
sations, as it is usually linked to opportunistic behaviours (Kim, Pae, Han, & Srivastava,
2010). A study by Murtha, Challagalla, and Kohli (2011) suggests that account managers
are concerned about internal opportunism behaviour manifested by some functional
specialists in their team. The study referred to this phenomenon as the ‘threat from
within’. Concerns about internal opportunism could drive account managers to con-
straint customers’ information from the firm’s specialists in their team – an issue that
perplexes top managers as it could hinder CRM sustained performance.
There are two sides to the moral dilemma of external opportunism, namely, the
organisation or company side and the customer or partner side. First, companies by
investing in customers relationships, are dependent on customers and more vulnerable
to opportunistic behaviour taking advantage of this investment (Geyskens et al., 2006;
Garnefeld & Helm, 2016). This is because if an organisation does not comply with
potential opportunistic behaviour of a customer, it stands the possibility of losing its
ongoing investments in this customer (Jap & Anderson, 2003; Kim & Yi, 2017; Saboo,
Kumar, & Anand, 2017). On the other hand, customers are vulnerable to organisations
that take advantage of their loyalty by hiding information, and coercing articulated
terms, clauses and sanctions (Yang, Zhou, & Jiang, 2011). CRM is an important instru-
ment that can be used for good or immoral aims. Companies’ misuse of this instrument
could explain the reported difficulties and high failure rates of CRM implementation
(Verhoef, 2003).

3.2.4. Lack of transparency

Pressure from the marketplace are pushing companies to instill greater transparency
(Gino, 2017). While some companies embrace transparency initiatives, others avoid
lifting the veil of secrecy in pursuit of financial gain or power. In this age of data
explosion, customers long for honesty and condemn secretive corporations for their
opacity in the way they manage their data The openness revolution, 2014).
Transparency is fairly an established concept in the literature of psychology (Vorauer &
Cameron, 2002), leadership (Norman, Avolio, & Luthans, 2010) economy (Faust & Svensson,
2001), industrial marketing (Heiman & Nickerson, 2002), consumer marketing and marketing
communications (Pentina, Bailey, & Zhang, 2018). Eggert and Helm (2003) define relationship
transparency as, ‘an individual’s subjective perception of being informed about the relevant
actions and properties of the other party in the interaction’. According to Roloff and Ablander
(2010), transparency forges an interactive relationship and its shortage can lead to dysfunc-
tional relationships. Although a sheer number of studies consider transparency as essential for
close customer relationships, a limited number of studies considers the damaging conse-
quences of implementing CRM and how it could undermine the information transparency of
a corporation.
Foremost, customers tend to be more transparent to companies and are required to
disclose personal information to their service provides (Liu, Eisingerich, Auh, Merlo, & Chun,
2015). For example, CRM tools such as spyware, surveys and Big Data solutions allow
companies to collect, analyse and use personal data (behaviours, satisfaction, preferences,
opinions) to effectively adapt communications and offers (real-time-bidding offers and
10 B. NGUYEN ET AL.

discounts). However, customers do not feel that they benefit from sharing their personal
data with companies (Gandomi & Haider, 2015). This is especially the case since, despite the
numerous possibilities to enhance transparency and information asymmetry (websites,
blogs, forums, etc.), companies are often reluctant to disclose information (costs, organisa-
tion, technology, supply) and opt to control their online reputation (N’Goala, 2015; Parris,
Dapko, Arnold, & Arnold, 2016). Moreover, companies’ use of CRM may lead to information
malpractices, such as posting false comments or cancelling negative evaluations. Customers
are concerned about the publicly criticised undesirable CRM practices of information
concealment, prevarication, fabrication, private data misuse as well as insufficient informa-
tion disclosure of product policies, and terms and conditions (Xiao & Benbasat, 2011).
Contrary to manipulation or deception, transparency is not an ethical principle but
a strategic decision. Turilli and Floridi (2009, p. 107) explain that information transparency,
‘can be ethically neutral, but it can easily become an ethically ‘enabling’ or ‘impairing’ factor,
that is a pro-ethical condition, when the disclosed information has an impact on ethical
principles’. In other words, the incomplete disclosure of information is not morally wrong in
itself. There is no general obligation for companies, as well as customers and citizens, to fully
disclose information. But if managers make calculated efforts to mislead, distort, disguise,
obfuscate or otherwise confuse their customers, they can be blamed for their manipulative
and deceptive tactics. Pledging to be transparent is not a simple process and should not be
confused with sharing confidential information (Balter, 2007). While promises of transpar-
ency are great, research suggests that applying this concept is only beneficial when both
parties trust each other (Albu & Flyverbom, 2019). Achieving transparancy and information
symmetry mandate intiatives that aim at overcoming communication tensions, conflicts
and amibuity (Chowdhury, Gruber, & Zolkiewski, 2016). Hultman and Axelsson (2007)
caution that transparency with misbehaving customers could bring frustration, distrust
and more opportunistic behaviour. Hence, control mechanism should ensure that trust,
fairness and transparancy are combined to complement one another and enhance value co-
creation between customers and service providers (Gundlach & Cannon, 2010), particularly
as organisations increasingly strive to monetise their data through third parties. In contrast,
unfairness, distruct, opportunism and lack of transparancy are all psychological drivers that
stimulate negative behaviours that project themselves at consumer and corporate levels.
These behaviours are the focus of the next section.

3.3 Mechanisms: behaviours of the dark side

The psychological drivers of CRM’s dark side can lead to a vicious circle, in which
customer anguish and retaliation may contribute to these firms increasing their antag-
onistic strategies, thus further damaging their relationship with customers and then
their brands. Previous research contemplates CRM dark side behaviours from two
perspectives: (1) the consumer level and (2) corporate level.
Just as certain behaviours can make or break interpersonal relationships, such as
a marriage, both theoretical and empirical research as well as anecdotal cases from
different companies show that – in business-to-business or business-to-consumer rela-
tionships – there exist certain mechanisms that either improve these relationships
(positive mediating mechanisms) or severely damage them (negative mediating
mechanisms), eventually leading to their dissolution. There are various drivers that
 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING 11

have an impact on positive and negative mediating mechanisms of relationship perfor-

mance. For instance, how well partners are able to communicate with each other, the
dependence of business partners on each other, investments into the relationship,
relationship duration, level of expertise and similarity all affect the development of
positive and negative mediating mechanisms. These characteristics come from the
stream of research on developing good relationships (e.g. Britton & Rose, 2004; Lund,
Kozlenkova, & Palmatier, 2015).
The dark side inherent in customer management schemes and service failures may
induce negative word of mouth, complaints, misbehaviour and revenge behaviours (e.g.
Ashworth & McShane, 2012; Barclay, Skarlicki, & Pugh, 2005). For example, while we
know that negative word of mouth occurs more frequently, the ramifications in today’s
digitally connected world can be severe (Ranaweera & Menon, 2013). The widespread
occurrence of the consumer revenge phenomenon is particularly alarming. A number of
studies have revealed that shoppers who received unsatisfactory service seek revenge
for their suffering and many of them admit already exacting revenge (e.g. Daunt &
Harris, 2012).
Anger is a key and fundamental emotion that distinguishes a merely dissatisfactory
experience from one likely to end in one of the negative behaviours. The concept of
anger is a central element in social behaviour (Diaz & Ruiz, 2002) and it is one of the
most frequently experienced of all emotions. Studies have generally proposed one
broad cause for anger. In consumer-firm relationships, as in all relationships, we develop
expectations about the relationship. We learn what the other party expects us to
contribute and we, in turn, develop notions about what we should receive from the
relationship (Grégoire, Tripp, & Legoux, 2009). The source of these expectations stems
from situations and consumers’ personality, demographic characteristics, past experi-
ences and social norms (Daunt & Harris, 2012). Moreover, The dark side of CRM may
involve conflicts of different types (functional, emotional, intra-organisational, inter-
organisational etc.), but also failures, relationship termination and revenge, such as
lawsuits (Abosag, Yen, & Barnes, 2016; Grandinetti, 2017).

3.4 Outcomes: critical issues

So far, we have seen that CRM can be implemented in unenlightened and even
deceptive ways by businsses that lack a clear strategic objectives and/or a real commit-
ment to their employees, customers and society. In such context, CRM investment is
draining business resources to negatively affect large number of businesses and custo-
mers. Boulding et al. (2005) indicate that the lack of clear CRM strategy and governance
practices is a fundamental pitfall for CRM projects. Considering the dark side of CRM
ought to help companies build up a vision that goes beyond short-termism and towards
developing a truly relational approach with employees, supplier, customers, share-
holders and communities. That necessitates connecting to customers and society, hav-
ing cross-functional department collaboration of CRM enhancements, integrating data
and devising strategic deliverables. In return, companies will be enabled to consciously
capitalise on CRM investment to drive a higher-purpose concern for customers’ well-
being, rather than a matter of selling as much as possible. This approach advocates the
best interests of not only customers but for all the stakeholders involved.
12 B. NGUYEN ET AL.

Examples of businesses practicing capitalism in an unenlightened and cruel way

include: avoiding taxes, manipulating regulations, accumulating wealth for few, and
degrading local communities and the global environment, are well-established in the
reviewed literature (e.g. Ghoshal, 2005). As awareness of these twisted approaches is
raised, people all over the world are continuously placing great demands for companies
to be socially conscious and purpose-driven (Serafeim, 2018). In response to the exten-
sive consumer criticism of the capitalist system, some researchers have looked into the
study of conscious capitalism (Sisodia et al., 2009). Conscious capitalism has two key
elements: (1) companies should articulate a higher purpose that transcends profit
maximisation; and (2) companies should be managed for the benefit of all stakeholders
in their ecosystem and not just shareholders. The rise of conscious capitalism (Aburdene,
2005; Mackey, 2011) reflects people’s higher levels of consciousness about themselves
and the world around them. Conscious capitalism is often criticised for being no more
than oxymoron and impractical concept that very few, if any, truly follow (Mackey &
Sisodia, 2013; Rauch, 2011). Some businesses may adopt virtuous initiatives, but this will
not make them conscious capitalists. In their paper, O’Toole and Vogel (2011) describe
conscious capitalism as businesses striving for virtue. They also critically debate the
merits and shortcomings of this concept concluding that most companies start off
virtuous; but as they grow, they struggle to sustain their higher purposes, leading
them to turn their back on conscious capitalism. Contemplating the connotation of
conscious capitalism while considering the dark side of CRM implementation ought to
help companies build up a vision that goes beyond short-termism and towards devel-
oping a truly relational approach with employees, supplier, customers, shareholders and
communities. That necessitates connecting to customers and society, having cross-
functional department collaboration of CRM enhancements, integrating data and devis-
ing strategic deliverables. In return, companies will be enabled to consciously capitalise
on CRM investment to drive a higher-purpose concern for customers’ well-being, rather
than a matter of selling as much as possible. This approach advocates the best interests
of not only customers but for all the stakeholders involved.

4. Conclusions and future research

Short-sightedness in organisations’ practices with CRM, as a customer management tool,
has led to critical consequences that have double effects on consumers and corpora-
tions within broader society. Researchers and media professionals report a wide variety
of non-benign outcomes emanating from undesirable practices in how companies
manage their relationships with customers (Johnsen & Lacoste, 2016; Titcombe, 2017;
Wong, 2018a). This paper seeks to respond to the gap in the literature regarding the
conceptualisation of how and when the dark side of CRM arises as a critical issue
distressing consumers and corporations (Payne & Frow, 2013). The central contribution
of this paper manifests in systematically synthesising the different streams of literature
to develop a conceptual framework of perception, behaviour and consequences of
a dark side in the CRM context. In this paper, we extend previous literature (Frow
et al., 2011; Nguyen et al., 2015) by contending that unfairness, distrust, opportunism
and lack of transparency are the primary drivers for the deviance behaviours of con-
sumers and corporates. We point out related negative possible behaviours and
 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING 13

consequences. We categorise malicious behaviours at strategic, tactical and consumer

response levels. Moreover, we point out the potential consequences of consumer anger
and unmanageable relationships.
As should become clear by the end of this paper, CRM is a complex phenomenon that
has strategic, marketing, psychological, and economic aspects, and which go way
beyond just a marketing function in an organisation. In this digital world where custo-
mer trust and data can make or break a business, corporations need to be vigilant to
critical issues in their practices with CRM. Our recipe for averting the dark side of CRM
use involves developing clear strategies and performance metrics, deep commitment to
fair customer treatment and devising a higher purpose that contributes to sustainable
development of our ecosystem.

4.1. Future research directions

This research fills a literature gap by synthesising different disciplines and perspectives
into a comprehensive framework of CRM’s dark side. This step should be followed now
by empirical studies seeking to investigate and generalise the proposed integrated
model to different contexts. The operationalisation of the framework can be achieved
by follow-up studies incorporating two sets of data – customer and corporate – to
represent both perspectives. Although CRM is the primary focus of this paper, the dark
side identified stretches beyond CRM, with broader implications and learnings. The role
of CRM managers and leadership teams is clear. They need to monitor this dark side and,
if possible, influence this to the best of their abilities, so as to induce fairness for all
stakeholders. Future studies should investigate different approaches to overcoming the
dark side of CRM, which is a complex issue that requires an inherent understanding of
laws and regulations, fairness and trust, consumer behaviour and corporate decision-
making, with much research still needed. The dark side of CRM still warrants more
research and we propose more research to highlight the associations between the dark
side and discrimination, and the perceptions towards these. It is especially interesting to
understand the point at which one becomes the other. Other issues requiring further
research include, to name a few, data-use infringements, consumer exploitation, the
dark side of the Internet of Things, unethical business practices, fair and trustworthy
relationships, consumer welfare and government regulation to mitigate dark side issues.
More research is needed to structure and manage the concept of branding’s darker side
more systematically. Such research should consider aspects of dark side behaviour in
relation to data collection and use, antagonistic strategies, dark side brand equity,
consumer retribution, hostility and revenge towards the brand, brand building and
restoring trust, as well as learning from failures.

Note
1. We mainly base our analysis for the systematic literature review on the journal impact factor
and the Association of Business Schools Academic Journal Quality Guide (AJG) 2018. The
AJG ranking list, which stems from the UK, includes the classification of research outputs as
follows: 4* (best work in the field), 3* (international excellence), 2* (internationally recog-
nised) 1* (nationally recognised).
14 B. NGUYEN ET AL.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Abdelhadi, A., Foster, C., & Whysall, P. (2014). An exploratory investigation of aberrant consumer
behaviour in Libya: A sociocultural approach. Journal of Marketing Management, 30(9/10),
857–873.
Abosag, I., Yen, D. A., & Barnes, B. R. (2016). What is dark about the dark-side of business
relationships? Industrial Marketing Management, 55, 5–9.
Abosag, I., Yen, D. A., & Tynan, C. (2015). The dark side of business relationships: An overview. In B.
Nguyen, A. Canhoto, and L. Simkin (Eds.), The Dark Side of CRM. London, UK: Routledge.
Aburdene, P. (2005). Megatrends 2010: The rise of conscious capitalism. Charlottesville, VA: Hampton
Roads.
Albu, O. B., & Flyverbom, M. (2019). Organizational transparency: Conceptualizations, conditions,
and consequences. Business & Society, 58(2), 268–297.
Anderson, E., & Jap, S. D. (2005). The dark side of close relationships. Mit Sloan Management
Review, 46(3), 75–82.
Ashworth, L., & McShane, L. (2012). Why do we care what others pay? The effect of other
consumers’ prices on inferences of seller (dis)respect and perceptions of deservingness viola-
tion. Journal of Retailing, 88(1), 145–155.
Aurier, P., & N’Goala, G. (2010). The differing and mediating roles of trust and relationship
commitment in service relationship maintenance and development. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 38(3), 303–325.
Ballester, E. D., & Aleman, J. L. M. (2001). Brand trust in the context of consumer loyalty. European
Journal of Marketing, 35(11/12), 1238–1258.
Balter, D. (2007, November 13). The strategic benefits of transparency. Retrieved from https://hbr.
org/2007/11/the-strategic-benefits-of-tran
Barclay, L. J., Skarlicki, D. P., & Pugh, S. D. (2005). Exploring the role of emotions in injustice
perceptions and retaliation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 629.
Bolton, L. E., Warlop, L., & Alba, J. W. (2003). Consumer perceptions of price (un) fairness. Journal of
Consumer Research, 29(4), 474–491.
Boulding, W., Staelin, R., Ehret, M., & Johnston, W. J. (2005). A customer relationship management
roadmap: What is known, potential pitfalls, and where to go. Journal of Marketing, 69(4),
155–166.
Britton, J. E., & Rose, J. (2004). Thinking about relationship theory. In D. Peppers & M. Rogers (Eds.),
Managing customer relationships: A strategic framework (pp. 38–50). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Cambra-Fierro, J. J., Centeno, E., Olavarria, A., & Vazquez-Carrasco, R. (2017). Success factors in
a CRM strategy: Technology is not all. Journal of Strategic Marketing., 25(4), 316–333.
Campbell, M. C. (1999). Perceptions of price unfairness: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of
Marketing Research, 36(2), 187–199.
Chatterjee, S., Ghosh, S. K., Chaudhuri, R., & Nguyen, B. (2019). Are CRM systems ready for AI
integration? A conceptual framework of organizational readiness for effective AI-CRM
integration. The Bottom Line, 32, 144–157.
Chowdhury, I. N., Gruber, T., & Zolkiewski, J. (2016). Every cloud has a silver lining—exploring the
dark side of value co-creation in B2B service networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 55, 97–
109.
Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). Science mapping soft-
ware tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society
for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1382–1402.
Crosby, L. A., & Johnson, S. L. (2001). Technology: Friend or foe to customer relationships?.
Marketing Management, 10(4), 10.
 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING 15

Crosno, J. L., & Dahlstrom, R. (2008). A meta-analytic review of opportunism in exchange relation-
ships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 191–201.
Daunt, K. L., & Harris, L. C. (2012). Exploring the forms of dysfunctional customer behaviour:
A study of differences in servicescape and customer disaffection with service. Journal of
Marketing Management, 28(1/2), 129–153.
Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review. In D. A. Buchanan & A.
Bryman (Eds.), The sage handbook of organizational research methods (pp. 671–689). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., & Van Aken, J. E. (2008). Developing design propositions through research
synthesis. Organization Studies, 29(3), 393–413.
Diaz, A., Casado, B., & Mas Ruiz, F. J. (2002). The consumer’s reaction to delays in service.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 13(2), 118–140.
Eggert, A., & Helm, S. (2003). Exploring the impact of relationship transparency on business
relationships: A cross-sectional study among purchasing managers in germany. Industrial
Marketing Management, 32(2), 101–108.
Faust, J., & Svensson, L. E. (2001). Transparency and credibility: Monetary policy with unobservable
goals. International Economic Review, 42(2), 369–397.
Fernandes, T., & Calamote, A. (2016). Unfairness in consumer services: Outcomes of differential
treatment of new and existing clients. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 28, 36–44.
Friend, L. A., Costley, C. L., & Brown, C. (2010). Spirals of distrust vs. spirals of trust in retail customer
service: Consumers as victims or allies. Journal of service marketing, 24(6), 458–467.
Frow, P. E., Payne, A., Wilkinson, I. F., & Young, L. (2011). Customer management and CRM:
Addressing the dark side. Journal of Services Marketing, 25(2), 79–89.
Gandomi, A., & Haider, M. (2015). Beyond the hype: Big data concepts, methods, and analytics.
International Journal of Information Management, 35(2), 137–144.
Ganesan, S., Brown, S. P., Mariadoss, B. J., & Ho, H. (2010). Buffering and amplifying effects of
relationship commitment in business-to-business relationships. Journal of Marketing Research,
47(2), 361–373.
Garnefeld, I., & Helm, S. V. (2016). Engineered customer referrals: Prevalence and antecedents. In
M. Groza & C. Ragland (Eds.), Marketing challenges in a turbulent business environment.
Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science. Springer.
Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Kumar, N. (2006). Make, buy, or ally: A transaction cost theory
meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 519–543.
Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75–91.
Gino, F. (2017). Radical transparency can reduce bias – But only if it’s done right. Harvard Business
Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2017/10/radical-transparency-can-reduce-bias-but-only-
if-its-done-right
Grandinetti, R. (2017). Exploring the dark side of cooperative buyer-seller relationships. Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, 32(2), 326–336.
Grayson, K., & Ambler, T. (1999). The dark side of long-term relationships in marketing services.
Journal of Marketing Research, 36(1), 132–141.
Grégoire, Y., Tripp, T. M., & Legoux, R. (2009). When customer love turns into lasting hate: The
effects of relationship strength and time on customer revenge and avoidance. Journal of
Marketing, 73(6), 18–32.
Gundlach, G. T., & Cannon, J. P. (2010). “trust but verify”? The Performance Implications of
Verification Strategies in Trusting Relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
38(4), 399–417.
Haenlein, M. (2017). How to date your clients in the 21st century: Challenges in managing
customer relationships in today's world. Business Horizons, 60(5), 577–586.
Heiman, B., & Nickerson, J. A. (2002). Towards reconciling transaction cost economics and the
knowledge-based view of the firm: The context of interfirm collaborations. International Journal
of the Economics of Business, 9(1), 97–116.
16 B. NGUYEN ET AL.

Herrmann, A., Xia, L., Monroe, K. B., & Huber, F. (2007). The influence of price fairness on customer
satisfaction: An empirical test in the context of automobile purchases. Journal of Product &
Brand Management, 16(1), 49–58.
Huang, M. H., & Wang, E. T. (2013). Marketing is from mars, it is from venus: Aligning the
worldviews for firm performance. Decision Sciences, 44(1), 87–125.
Hultman, J., & Axelsson, B. (2007). Towards a typology of transparency for marketing management
research. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(5), 627–635.
Jap, S. D., & Anderson, E. (2003). Safeguarding inter-organizational performance and continuity
under ex post opportunism. Management Science, 49(12), 1684–1701.
Jayachandran, S., Sharma, S., Kaufman, P., & Raman, P. (2005). The role of relational information
processes and technology use in customer relationship management. Journal of Marketing, 69
(4), 177–92.
Johnsen, R. E., & Lacoste, S. (2016). An exploration of the ‘dark side’ associations of conflict, power
and dependence in customer–Supplier relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 59,
76–95.
Johnson, D., & Grayson, K. (2005). Cognitive and affective trust in service relationships. Journal of
Business Research, 58(4), 500–507.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1994). Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking:
Entitlements in the market. In R. Thaler (Ed.), Quasi rational economics (pp. 199–219).
New York, NY: Russell Sage.
Kim, N., Pae, J. H., Han, J. K., & Srivastava, R. K. (2010). Utilization of business technologies:
Managing relationship-based benefits for buying and supplying firms. Industrial Marketing
Management, 39(3), 473–484.
Kim, S. Y., & Yi, Y. (2017). Embarrassed customers: The dark side of receiving help from others.
Journal of Service Management, 28(4), 788–806.
Lee-Wingate, N. (2015). Fairness management: China, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea. In Nguyen,
B. and Rowley, C. Ethical and Social Marketing in Asia. Elsevier, Oxford, UK.
Lim, C., Kim, M.-J., Kim, K.-H., Kim, K.-W., & Maglio, P. (2019). Customer process management:
A framework for using customer-related data to create customer value. Journal of Service
Management, 30(1), 105–131.
Liu, Y., Eisingerich, A. B., Auh, S., Merlo, O., & Chun, H. E. H. (2015). Service firm performance
transparency: How, when, and why does it pay off? Journal of Service Research, 18(4), 451–467.
Liu, Y., Li, Y., & Zhang, L. N. (2010). Control mechanisms across a buyer–Supplier relationship
quality matrix. Journal of Business Research, 63(1), 3–12.
Lund, D. J., Kozlenkova, I. V., & Palmatier, R. W. (2015). Good versus bad relationship framework. In
B. Nguyen, L. Simkin, & A. I. Canhoto (Eds.), The dark side of CRM (pp. 93–122). Abingdon, UK:
Routledge.
Mackey, J. (2011). What conscious capitalism really is: A response to James O’Toole and David
Vogel’s ‘Two and a half cheers for conscious capitalism’. California Management Review, 53(3),
83–90.
Mackey, J., & Sisodia, R. (2013). Conscious capitalism is not an oxymoron. Harvard Business Review.
Martin, C. L. (2016). Retrospective: Compatibility management: Customer-to-customer relation-
ships in service environments. Journal of Services Marketing, 30(1), 11–15.
Martínez-López, F. J., Merigó, J. M., Valenzuela-Fernández, L., & Nicolás, C. (2018). fifty years of the
European Journal of Marketing : A bibliometric analysis. European Journal of Marketing, 52(1/2),
439–468.
McGoogan, C. (2017). NHS illegally handed Google firm 1.6m patient records, UK data watchdog
finds. The Telegraph. Available form: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/07/03/goo
gles-deepmind-nhs-misused-patient-data-trial-watchdog-says/
McGovern, G., & Moon, Y. (2007, June). Companies and the customers who hate them. Harvard
Business Review, 78–84.
Miyamoto, T., & Rexha, N. (2004). Determinants of three facets of customer trust a marketing
model of japanese buyer–supplier relationship. Journal of Business Research, 57(3), 321–319.
 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING 17

Mukherjee, A., & Nath, P. (2007). Role of electronic trust in online retailing. A Re-examination of the
commitment-trust theory. European Journal of Marketing, 41(9/10), 1173–1202.
Müller, A. L. (2014). Sustainability and customer relationship management: Current state of
research and future research opportunities. Management Review Quarterly, 64(4), 201–224.
Murtha, B. R., Challagalla, G., & Kohli, A. K. (2011). The threat from within: Account managers’
concern about opportunism by their own team members. Management Science, 57(9),
1580–1593.
N’Goala, G. (2015). Opportunism, transparency, manipulation, deception and exploitation of
customers’ vulnerabilities in CRM. In B. Nguyen, L. Simkin, & A. I. Canhoto (Eds.), The dark side
of CRM (pp. 122–150). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
National Customer Rage Survey. (2013). Customer care alliance. [Report] Retrieved from www.
customercaremc.com/the-2013-customer-rage-study
Newbert, S. L. (2007). Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: An assessment
and suggestions for future research. Strategic Management Journal, 28(2), 121–146.
Nguyen, B. (2011). The dark side of CRM. The Marketing Review, 11(2), 137–149.
Nguyen, B., & Mutum, D. S. (2012). A review of customer relationship management: Successes,
advances, pitfalls and futures. Business Process Management, 18(3), 400–419.
Nguyen, B., Simkin, L., & Canhoto, A. I. (Eds.). (2015). The dark side of CRM: Customers, relationships
and management. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Norman, S. M., Avolio, B. J., & Luthans, F. (2010). The impact of positivity and transparency on trust
in leaders and their perceived effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 350–364.
O’Toole, J., & Vogel, D. (2011). Two and a half cheers for conscious capitalism. California
Management Review, 53(3), 60–76.
Parris, D. L., Dapko, J. L., Arnold, R. W., & Arnold, D. (2016). Exploring transparency: A new
framework for responsible business management. Management Decision, 54(1), 222–247.
Payne, A., & Frow, P. (2005). A strategic framework for customer relationship management. Journal
of Marketing, 69(4), 167–76.
Payne, A., & Frow, P. (2013). Strategic customer management: Integrating CRM and relationship
marketing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Pentina, I., Bailey, A. A., & Zhang, L. (2018). Exploring effects of source similarity, message valence,
and receiver regulatory focus on yelp review persuasiveness and purchase intentions. Journal of
Marketing Communications, 24(2), 125–145.
Phan, D. D., & Vogel, D. R. (2010). A model of customer relationship management and business
intelligence systems for catalogue and online retailers. Information & Management, 47(2), 69–77.
Ranaweera, C., & Menon, K. (2013). For better or for worse? Adverse effects of relationship age and
continuance commitment on positive and negative word of mouth. European Journal of
Marketing, 47(10), 1598–1621.
Rauch, D. (2011). Conscious capitalism: A better road map: A Response to James O’Toole and David
Vogel’s ‘Two and a half cheers for conscious capitalism’. California Management Review, 53(3),
91–97.
Ren, F., & Quan, C. (2012). Linguistic-based emotion analysis and recognition for measuring
consumer satisfaction: An application of affective computing. Information Technology and
Management, 13(4), 321–332.
Reynolds, K. L., & Harris, L. C. (2009). Dysfunctional customer behavior severity: An empirical
examination. Journal of Retailing, 85(3), 321–335.
Roloff, J., & Aßländer, M. S. (2010). Corporate autonomy and buyer–supplier relationships: The case
of unsafe mattel toys. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(4), 517–534.
Romar, E. J. (2004). Globalization, ethics, and opportunism: A Confucian view of business
relationships. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(4), 663–678.
Saboo, A. R., Kumar, V., & Anand, A. (2017). Assessing the impact of customer concentration on
initial public offering and balance sheet–based outcomes. Journal of Marketing, 81(6), 42–61.
Sekhon, H., Roy, S., Shergill, G., & Pritchard, A. (2013). Modelling trust in service relationships: A
transnational perspective. Journal of Services Marketing, 27(1), 76–86.
18 B. NGUYEN ET AL.

Serafeim, G. (2018). Facebook, BlackRock, and the case for purpose-driven companies. Harvard
Business Review.
Singh, J., & Sirdeshmukh, D. (2000). Agency and trust mechanisms in consumer satisfaction and
loyalty judgments. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 150–167.
Sinkovics, N. (2016). Enhancing the foundations for theorizing through bibliometric mapping,
International Marketing Review, 33(3), 327–350.
Sisodia, R. S. (2009). Doing business in the age of conscious capitalism. Journal of Indian Business
Research, 1(2/3), 188–192.
Starmans, C., Sheskin, M., & Bloom, P. (2017).Why people prefer unequal societies. Nature Human
Behaviour, 1.Article number: 0082.
Stros, M., & Lee, N. (2015). Marketing dimensions in the prescription pharmaceutical industry: A
systematic literature review. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 23(4), 318–336.
The openness revolution. (2014, December 11). The openness revolution. The Economist. Retrieved
from https://www.economist.com/news/business/21636070-multinationals-are-forced-reveal-
more-about-themselves-where-should-limits
Thompson, N. T. (2013, October 7). Understanding fairness is the key to keeping customers.
Harvard Business Review.
Tilley, N., & Pawson, R. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London: Sage.
Titcombe, J. (2017). EU closes in on Google as it prepares second antitrust fine. The Telegraph. Retrieved
from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/11/11/eu-closes-google-prepares-second-
antitrust-fine/
Touré-Tillery, M., & McGill, A. L. (2015). Who or what to believe: Trust and the differential
persuasiveness of human and anthropomorphized messengers. Journal of Marketing, 79(4),
94–110.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of
Management, 14(3), 207–222.
Turilli, M, & Floridi, L. (2009). The ethics of information transparency. Ethics and Information
Technology, 11(2), 105–112.
Vafeas, M. (2015). Account manager turnover and the influence of context: An exploratory study.
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 30(1), 72–82.
Van den Bos, K., Wilke, H. A. M., Lind, E. A., & Vermunt, R. (1998). Evaluating outcomes by means of
the fair process effect: Evidence for different processes in fairness and satisfaction judgments.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1493.
Van Eck, N. J., Waltman, L., Dekker, R., & van den Berg, J. (2010). A comparison of two techniques
for bibliometric mapping: Multidimensional scaling and VOS. Journal of The American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2405–2416.
Van Tonder, E., & Petzer, D. J. (2018). The interrelationships between relationship marketing
constructs and customer engagement dimensions. Service Industries Journal, 38, 948–973.
Verhoef, P. C. (2003). Understanding the effect of customer relationship management efforts on
customer retention and customer share development. Journal of Marketing, 67(4), 30–45.
Vorauer, J. D., & Cameron, J. J. (2002). So close, and yet so far: Does collectivism foster transparency
overestimation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1344.
Wang, X., & Yang, Z. (2013). Inter-firm opportunism: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its
antecedents and effect on performance. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 28(2), 137–
146.
Wathne, K. H., & Heide, J. B. (2000). Opportunism in interfirm relationships: Forms, outcomes, and
solutions. Journal of Marketing, 64(4), 36–51.
Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: The Free Press.
Wong, J. C. (2018a). Facebook ending News Feed experiment condemned as ‘Orwellian’. The
Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/01/facebook-
news-feed-experiment-media-posts.
 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING 19

Wong, J. C. (2018b).Facebook overhauls News Feed in favour of ‘meaningful social interactions’.

The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/11/facebook-
news-feed-algorithm-overhaul-mark-zuckerberg
Wong, Y. H., Chan, R. Y., Ngai, E. W. T., & Oswald, P. (2009). Is customer loyalty vulnerability-based?
An empirical study of a chinese capital-intensive manufacturing industry. Industrial Marketing
Management, 38(1), 83–93.
Xia, L., Monroe, K. B., & Cox, J. L. (2004). The price is unfair! A conceptual framework of price
fairness perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 1–15.
Xiao, B., & Benbasat, I. (2011). Product-related deception in e-commerce: A theoretical perspective.
MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 169–195.
Yang, Z., Zhou, C., & Jiang, L. (2011). When do formal control and trust matter? A context-based
analysis of the effects on marketing channel relationships in China. Industrial Marketing
Management, 40(1), 86–96.
Zhu, W., Su, S., & Shou, Z. (2017). Social ties and firm performance: The mediating effect of
adaptive capability and supplier opportunism. Journal of Business Research, 78, 226–232.