Value co-creation: a review of literature and

future research agenda

Victor Saha and Praveen Goyal
Birla Institute of Technology and Science Pilani, Pilani, India, and
Charles Jebarajakirthy
Department of Marketing, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present a systematic review of the available literature on value co-creation (VCC) and provide insightful
future directions for research in this domain.
Design/methodology/approach – The extant literature on VCC has been reviewed by collecting relevant research papers based on certain
specified delimiting criteria. A total of 110 research papers have been analysed to gain useful insights into VCC literature.
Findings – The study analyses the literature on VCC and provides a clear distinction between VCC and its closely related constructs in the literature.
The study also draws significant insights from the VCC literature based on some specific parameters. Some frequently used theoretical perspectives
have been discussed in the study, thus pointing towards a few alternative theories that can be used for future research. Finally, specific trends
emerging from the literature have been discussed that provide a comprehensive understanding of the research inclinations of this concept, along
with future scopes of research in the VCC domain.
Research limitations/implications – The papers were selected for this study based on some delimiting criteria. Thus, the findings cannot be
generalised for the entire research on VCC.
Originality/value – This paper fulfils the need for a systematic review of the extant literature on VCC. The study synthesises literature and
bibliography on VCC from 2004 to 2019 to benefit both academics and practitioners and gives some directions to advance this domain of literature.
Keywords B2B, Value co-creation, Systematic review, Value co-destruction, Emerging trends
Paper type Literature review

1. Introduction since been applied by various firms to enhance their

Since the early twenty-first century, value co-creation (VCC)
has gradually evolved to become an effective process, owing to
the growing interest in the concept amongst practitioners and
academics worldwide. VCC is an interactive process where the
involved actors collaborate to create value for each other
(Grönroos, 2008; Kao et al., 2016; Galvagno and Dalli, 2014).
Ever since the evolution of service-dominant (S-D) logic
(Vargo and Lusch, 2004), academic works on VCC have
gained momentum in multiple directions. Since the beginning
of the past decade, various frameworks have been proposed to
understand the VCC concept. The DART model proposed by
Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) shows dialogue, access, risk
assessment and transparency as the basic components of VCC.
Various attempts have been made since then to propose
theoretical frameworks around this concept (Durugbo and
Pawar, 2014; Kao et al., 2016; Boyle, 2007; Etgar, 2008).
Over the years, research around the VCC concept has
forayed into diverse industries and contexts. This has made the
concept more acceptable across the business world and has
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald
Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/0885-8624.htm
performance and to forge strong relationships with their
customers. However, the adoption of the VCC concept across
various industries presents the proliferation of diverse
conceptualisations of the concept. For example, in the
business-to-consumer (B2C) sector, traditionally, the primary
actors involved in the VCC process are the company and its
customers; in the business-to-business (B2B) sector, however,
VCC happens with the active involvement of multiple actors
such as firm, its customers and suppliers (Kohtamäki and
Rajala, 2016; Breidbach and Maglio, 2016). Further, the
mechanism of VCC followed in the retail sector or hospitality
sector is quite different from that followed in the
telecommunication sector or for the bottom of the pyramid
(BoP) section of society. Thus, despite a growing expanse of
research on VCC and the application of VCC across diverse
industries and sectors, an elaborative review is necessary to
synthesise the extant VCC literature.
However, it is worth noting that a few scholarly attempts
have already been made to review and synthesise the VCC
literature. For instance, Galvagno and Dalli (2014) used
various bibliometric techniques to identify various research
streams that characterise the VCC literature until then.
Afterwards, Ranjan and Read (2016) reviewed the literature of

Received 13 January 2020

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Revised 2 November 2020
37/3 (2022) 612–628 13 March 2021
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 0885-8624] 5 April 2021
[DOI 10.1108/JBIM-01-2020-0017] Accepted 15 April 2021

612
 Value co-creation
Victor Saha, Praveen Goyal and Charles Jebarajakirthy
the time to extract two theoretical dimensions of VCC, namely,
co-production and value-in-use and then derived measurement
constructs for each of these dimensions. However, none of
these studies adopted a systematic review to analyse and
synthesise the entire VCC literature with a focus on identifying
the key developing trends and significant future research
directions for the concept. That is, a comprehensive review
delineating the gradual evolution of the concept of VCC over
the years and the emerging trends that have shaped the
concept, does not exist in the extant literature. This indicates a
major gap in the VCC literature.
The absence of such a comprehensive review presents us
with a challenge in appropriately examining the fragmented
conceptualisations of the concept and gaining a more
elaborative understanding of it. Further, a lack of such an
elaborative review has led to ambiguity and controversy in
delineating VCC from some other closely related terms such as
co-production, co-design and co-innovation. A systematic review
in that regard would help develop a comprehensive
understanding of the VCC concept and highlight scopes for
further research in this area (Goyal et al., 2013). Hence, the
purpose of the study is to carry out a comprehensive analysis of
the research in this field adopting a systematic literature review
(SLR) approach. In that regard, we formulate four specific
research questions that would provide a structure and direction
to this study.
It is important to note that there are a few closely related
concepts (e.g. co-production, co-design and co-innovation) in the
extant literature that have quite often been used
interchangeably with the concept of VCC. Though these
closely related concepts refer to the different forms of
collaboration between companies and customers, yet their
meanings differ from the concept of VCC. Hence, it is
important to distinguish these constructs from the concept of
VCC in this systematic review. Accordingly, we have
formulated the following research question to address this very
aspect:
R1. How is the conceptualisation of VCC different from its
closely related constructs such as co-production, co-design
and co-innovation?
Next, a structured analysis of our selected list of papers may
provide us with some useful insights into the academic
literature on VCC. For instance, we may be able to gain
insights into the gradual progression of the VCC literature
over the years, the most prominent countries where the
concept has been widely researched, the most widely used
methodologies to investigate the concept, main industries
and areas it has been applied to and many more useful
insights such as these. In that regard, synthesising our
selected list of papers on the basis of specific parameters such
as time period, countries, application areas, journals and methods
adopted and analysing the papers on the basis of these
parameters may help us to unleash such useful insights.
Accordingly, to address this very aspect, we have formulated
the following research question:
R2. What key insights can be drawn from the analysis of the
VCC literature based on specific parameters such as time
613
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 37 · Number 3 · 2022 · 612–628
period, countries, application areas, journals and methods
adopted?
Subsequently, it is important to note that the development of
academic literature for any concept renders itself to
interpretation and conceptualisation based on a multitude of
theoretical perspectives. The academic literature on VCC is no
different, and hence we need to synthesise the frequently used
theoretical perspectives in the VCC literature to understand the
theoretical views of VCC research. Such a synthesis will also
assist in suggesting the alternative theories that can be used to
further enrich the VCC literature. This will galvanise future
studies to examine VCC from these alternative theoretical
perspectives, and thus lead to the advancement of the field.
Accordingly, to address this aspect, we have formulated the
following research question:
R3. What are some of the most frequently used theoretical
perspectives in the VCC literature and what alternative
theories can be used for future research?
Finally, being a systematic review, it is important for this study
to reveal the various developing trends that are emerging out
from the VCC literature. These developing trends will provide
valuable insights into the VCC literature. By analysing
these developing trends, researchers would be able to identify
some gaps in each of these areas that need to be answered in the
future. Accordingly, to address this very aspect, we have
formulated the following research question:
R4. What are the developing trends and future research
directions emerging out of the VCC literature?
Accordingly, the paper begins with a discussion of the evolution
of the VCC concept and then describes the methodology
adopted for the study. As we are carrying out a systematic
review of VCC, it is important to first introduce the concept to
the readers and then delve into the systematic review of
literature on the concept. Hence, we have added a section to
illustrate the VCC concept before formally commencing the
systematic review process. It then describes the methodology
and the analytical process adopted for the study. Next, the
differences between the conceptualisation of VCC and other
closely related constructs are articulated, followed by the
analyses of the VCC literature based on a range of specified
delimiting criteria. The findings from these analyses would
address the first two research questions of the study. Next, the
paper discusses the theoretical perspectives related to VCC
research, thus addressing the third research question. Finally,
identifying developing trends and emergent themes in the VCC
literature, the paper puts forward various directions for future
research. This would address the fourth research question of
the study.
This study has both academic and practical significance.
From an academic perspective, firstly, it gives a comprehensive
understanding of the concept and demonstrates the progress
and development of the VCC literature in terms of the time
period, countries, application areas, journals and methods
adopted. Secondly, our study delineates the distinction
between VCC and some of the commonly used related terms
that denote the collaboration between companies and
 Value co-creation
Victor Saha, Praveen Goyal and Charles Jebarajakirthy
customers. This understanding would contribute to the
literature on VCC by giving clearer meaning to the concept.
Thirdly, this study portrays major developing trends in the
VCC literature and suggests insightful future research
directions emerging out of those trends. Finally, our study
discusses some frequently used theoretical perspectives of the
VCC research. These theoretical perspectives portray the
various theoretical underpinnings of VCC research that provide
evidence for the strong theoretical foundation of the concept.
From a practical perspective, this study can help managers
gain useful insights into the VCC process and assist them in
developing effective marketing strategies based on this concept.
The synthesis provided in this study can also help managers
understand how to effectively adopt the VCC process and how
to overcome the challenges in adopting this process in their
organisations. Further, our study explains how VCC can be
effectively used in the public services sector and in the BOP
markets. These insights would help managers and practitioners
of both government and non-government organisations
effectively implement the VCC process for creating better
economic and social value for the involved citizens, customers
and stakeholders in general.
2. Illustration of the concept of value co-creation
With the advent and pervasiveness of a more networked
economy, VCC has become a prominent area of research in the
marketing literature (Kohtamäki and Rajala, 2016). With the
introduction of the VCC concept, companies involve
customers in the development of an offering that goes beyond
just the production or design phase. Consequently, customers
are now actively involved with the companies in the
development of the offering through the investment of their
time, resources (operant and operand) and insights/ideas
(Hollebeek et al., 2019). This indicates that VCC is a resource-
integration process that can offer greater benefits to firms
(Romero and Molina, 2011). Hence, firms such as Legos,
Starbucks and Dell have built the requisite infrastructure and
technological platforms to implement the VCC process in their
businesses (Skålén et al., 2015; Ramaswamy and Gouillart,
2010).
For over half a century, value creation has been perceived to
be a priority for firms (Verma et al., 2012). Moreover, a clear
distinction was made in the value creation concept between the
context of marketing services and that of marketing goods. This
distinction was made based on the postulation of goods-
dominant (G-D) logic which suggests that value is created at
the point of exchange, i.e. “an offering can be of value only
when it can be exchanged for something else, usually money”
(Ng et al., 2012, p. 4). That is, an offering is not valuable unless
it is exchanged or sold to someone. In other words, as per the
G-D logic, value is created at the point of exchange. However,
with the advent of the S-D logic, this perspective (i.e. value
being created at the point of exchange) has transformed into the
perspective of value being created at the point of use (Vargo
and Lusch, 2004, 2008). That is, the S-D logic suggests that a
firm can only offer a value proposition to customers; and that
value is created only when the customers actually use the
service (Payne et al., 2008; Vargo et al., 2008). Developing out
of this S-D logic is the concept of VCC, which proffers that
614
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 37 · Number 3 · 2022 · 612–628
within a service system, customers and firms are joint
collaborators in the creation of value (Saha et al., 2020;
Delpechitre et al., 2018; Ng et al., 2012).
It is also noteworthy to mention that as the notion of service-
logic (SL) has some similarities with S-D logic, the former may
appear to have an influence on the conceptualisation of VCC.
Both SL and S-D logic assume resource-integration amongst the
involved actors as their starting point for rendering value for
themselves. However, S-D logic considers service as the basis of
all businesses, but SL, on the contrary, considers value creation
to be more fundamental than service. SL assumes that factors
such as price and costs influence value creation, and thus value
creation forms the basis for businesses while service is just a
facilitator (Grönroos and Gummerus, 2014). In that regard,
though S-D logic posits that value should be co-created, SL,
however, does not agree with the claim that customers and
service providers are always co-creators of value. Accordingly,
Grönroos and Gummerus (2014) state that “the SL does not
agree with the claim, prominent in the SDL, that the user and
service provider are always co-creators of value, nor with the
notion that the firm as a service provider can influence
customers’ value creation by allowing customers to join the
firm’s processes as value co-creators” (p. 212). Based on this
discussion, it is evident that the concept of VCC stems its
conceptualisation from the notion of S-D logic and the notion
of SL has no direct effect on its conceptualisation.
Consequently, VCC entails that actors jointly create value
during a service encounter and that value cannot be created
without the active involvement of the actors (Saha and Goyal,
2019; Vargo and Lusch, 2008). Given the various advantages
that VCC avails to involved actors such as higher customer
satisfaction and loyalty, higher firm’s profitability and better
quality and customised products and services, this concept has
become increasingly popular amongst businesses in a diverse
range of sectors. Consequently, the academic interest in this
concept sparked, leading to a wide number of studies being
carried out to conceptualise it and to make it more
advantageous and relevant for businesses.
The DART model developed by Prahalad and Ramaswamy
(2004) elaborates on the building blocks of implementing VCC
as an effective strategy in business. Post the conception of the
DART model (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004) and it is wide
acceptance across industry and academia, many researchers
have devised their own conceptual models and frameworks to
present VCC with a more entrenching enunciation. Boyle
(2007) developed a five-stage model of brand co-creation,
followed by a conceptual model by Payne et al. (2008)
describing how co-creation of brand relationship experiences
can be managed. Subsequently, frameworks and models were
developed applying the concept of co-creation to social media,
new product development and politics amongst many other
facets (Hoyer et al., 2010; Kao et al., 2016; Kushwah et al.,
2017). A selected listing of the prominent conceptual models
developed in the past has been provided in Figure 1.
Further, various researchers have defined VCC consistency
with the above-stated conceptualisations. A selected list of the
prominent definitions of VCC developed over time has been
provided in Table 1.
Each of these definitions almost unequivocally explains VCC
as a process where value is created mutually for the involved
 Value co-creation Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Victor Saha, Praveen Goyal and Charles Jebarajakirthy Volume 37 · Number 3 · 2022 · 612–628

Figure 1 Selected conceptual models and frameworks of value co-creation

Table 1 Definitions of value co-creation

Author Definition of value co-creation
Hein et al. (2019) Process of value creation between actors within a service ecosystem on a service platform
Ramaswamy and Ozcan Enactment of interactional creation across interactive system environments (afforded by interactive platforms), entailing
(2018) agency engagements and structuring organisations
Delpechitre et al. (2018) Joint creation of value by the firm and the customer
Chen et al. (2018) From the firm’s perspective, co-creation reflects the organisation’s perceived value, which may include strengthened business
relationships through interacting with service system actors. From the customer’s perspective, co-creation implies the
perceived value accruing from firm-based interactions which may arise from service staff responsiveness, empathy, etc.
Sugathan et al. (2017) Customer participation in various stages of production and use processes through the application of operant resources such
as knowledge, skills and effort
Ranjan and Read (2016) A process where consumers assume an active role and create value together with the firm through direct and indirect
collaboration across one or more stages of production and consumption
Galvagno and Dalli (2014) Joint, collaborative, concurrent, peer-like process of producing new value, both materially and symbolically
Ramaswamy (2011) Process by which mutual value is expanded together, where the value to participating individuals is a function of their
experiences, both their engagement experiences on the platform and productive and meaningful human experiences that
result
Peñaloza and Mish (2011) Integration of skills, knowledge and competency resources by all economic actors
Williams and Aitken (2011) A reciprocal process where value is delivered when all parties involved in the process realise their roles in the process and
fulfil their responsibilities
Grönroos and Ravald (2009) Dyadic interactions between two parties involved in the joint activities of creation

actors and where resource integration takes place. For instance,
Galvagno and Dalli (2014) refer to VCC as a joint,
collaborative and concurrent process of creating value for the
involved actors, while Sugathan et al. (2017) and Peñaloza and
Mish (2011) explain VCC from the perspectives of integrating
resources such as knowledge, skills and efforts. However, one
major difference between these definitions is the interpretation
of value. Co-creation has gradually transitioned from being a
dyadic interaction between two actors (e.g. customers and
firm) into a process that includes multiple actors who are

615
 Value co-creation
Victor Saha, Praveen Goyal and Charles Jebarajakirthy
involved in complex interactions amongst themselves. For
instance, in the earlier years, Grönroos and Ravald (2009)
explain VCC as dyadic interactions between two parties
involved in the joint creation. However, in subsequent years,
researchers expanded the concept of VCC to include multiple
actors involved in complex interactions. For instance, Williams
and Aitken (2011) perceive VCC as a reciprocal process where
value is delivered when all parties involved in the process realise
their roles in the process and fulfil their responsibilities.
Similarly, Hein et al. (2019) describe VCC as a process of
creating value between all the involved actors within a service
ecosystem. Thus, this gradual conceptual evolution of VCC has
made the value creation process more inclusive.
The preceding discussion indicates the diverse illustrations
and definitions of the concept of VCC and the complexities
involved in its conceptualisation. Also, the nature of the
fragmented conceptualisation of VCC is quite evident here.
Research on this concept is still developing and many more
insights are yet to be unearthed for its effective
conceptualisation and implementation. However, as a
resource-integrating mechanism, VCC has already shown
promising signs of success, and thus it continues to be a subject
of interest amongst practitioners and academics alike. Hence,
in this paper, we synthesise the extant literature on VCC and
attempt to provide useful insights to the industry and academia.
3. Methodology and analysis of the study
3.1 Search process
The review method adopted for this study is an SLR approach that
originated from the medical science literature (Shukla and
Jharkharia, 2013). Tranfield et al. (2003) have described this
method as a process of synthesising the literature in a systematic
and transparent way. The purpose of such a literature review
method is to summarise the existing literature to identify the
conceptual contents of a domain in a systematic and explicit way
(Meredith, 1993; Fink, 1998; Harland et al., 2006).
However, one of the challenges in analysing the entire literature
on any specific domain is its ever-growing expanse of literature in
light of the developments in the domain (Shukla and Jharkharia,
2013). Thus, it is important to use the delimiting criteria for
undertaking the review process. Accordingly, the delimiting
conditions adopted for this study are as follows:
 Papers published within the time frame of 14 years (2004–
2019): As the concept of VCC emerged in 2004 (Prahalad
and Ramaswamy, 2004), this study has taken all papers
Figure 2 Steps and schema of inclusion and exclusion criteria to select the final set of articles for SLR
Selection of articles
from reputed online
databases and
published peer-
reviewed journals
(N=205)
Removed
Duplicate
studies (N=54)
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 37 · Number 3 · 2022 · 612–628
into account from the inception of the concept until the
date this study has been envisioned.
 Papers published in major databases (Emerald Insight,
Elsevier, Harvard Business Publishing, JSTOR, SAGE,
ScienceDirect, Springer, Taylor and Francis and Wiley
InterScience).
 Papers published in peer-reviewed journals
Only papers that satisfied all the above-mentioned delimiting
criteria were included in this study. The keywords used for
searching the databases are “co-creation” and “value co-
creation”, as both of these terms have been used synonymously
in the literature. Papers with any of these keywords identified in
the title, abstract or keyword list were included for this study
within the purview of the previously set delimiting criteria.
Applying these delimiting criteria, a total of 205 articles were
identified for further analysis. A total of 54 duplicate articles
were removed. We then assessed the remaining 151 articles for
their suitability in our study. We read the abstracts of each
paper to evaluate the fit of the papers with the objective of our
study and found that 41 were not published in the co-creation
area. These papers could not be considered for review as they
were not in the area of our investigation. After deleting these
papers, 110 studies were selected for the final analysis. Figure 2
illustrates the detailed schema for conducting the search, in
addition to the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
3.2 Process of analysis
We perused through all of the shortlisted articles, tabulated them
in MS Excel and then identified the major themes and insights
emerging out from the VCC literature. The shortlisted papers were
classified into two broad categories. The first category contained
papers that investigated VCC in a generic context, i.e. no specific
industry context; while the second category consisted of papers
that investigated VCC in a specific industry context. This
classification was made while keeping in view the research
questions of our review. For instance, as the generic papers are
mostly conceptual in nature, they provide a good understanding of
the academic conceptualisation of the VCC concept. That is, the
generic papers show how the concept has been shaped by
academic scholars over the past decade. Hence, given the
conceptual nature of generic papers, they would be more suitable
to understand the distinction between closely related constructs of
VCC. On the contrary, the contextual papers show how the
concept of VCC has been applied across various business contexts.
Consequently, these papers show the various research streams or
Articles were assessed Final articles set
for their suitability used for SLR
(N=151) (N=110)
Removed
Not relevant to the
topic of research
(N=41)
616
 Value co-creation
Victor Saha, Praveen Goyal and Charles Jebarajakirthy
developing trends around this concept. Hence, based on this
rationale, we adopted these two broader classifications to
pertinently address our four research questions.
Accordingly, we found a total of 60 papers in the first
category, while a total of 50 papers were found in the second
category. The first category gave us a thorough understanding
of the concept of VCC and showed us the various constructs
that are closely related to VCC. Each of these constructs has its
own distinct meaning, yet some have been used
interchangeably, at times, with VCC. Thus, in the first part of
our analysis section, we explore briefly the differences between
VCC and its closely related constructs. This part of the analysis
addresses the first research question of our study.
The second category of papers gave us insights into the various
developing trends emerging out of the VCC literature. By delving
deeper into the second category of papers, we combined the
relevant text from these papers under the theme “Developing
trends in the value co-creation literature”. The relevant text from
these papers was copied into a Word document and then coded
independently by the first and second authors of this paper. This
resulted in a total of 15 codes which were then categorised into six
themes by the first researcher; these were then meticulously
examined and agreed upon by the third author. The value of
inter-rater reliability as assessed by Cohen’s kappa was 0.74. This
calculated value is higher than the threshold value of 0.65
(Srivastava et al., 2020; Moore and Benbasat, 1991). We then
explored each of these developing trends along with their future
directions of research. This part of the analysis addresses the
fourth research question of our study.
Furthermore, the two categories of papers together gave us
key insights into the dynamic characteristics of the overall VCC
literature. That is an analysis of both the categories of papers
revealed to us key insights about time period, countries,
application areas, journals and methods adopted for the VCC
literature. Hence, this part of the analysis addresses the second
research question of our study.
Finally, both categories of papers gave us valuable insights
into the various theoretical perspectives used in the VCC
literature. It is worth noting that only 21 out of the 110
shortlisted papers used at least one theoretical perspective. That
is, the majority of the studies did not use any theoretical
foundation. In our analysis, we described the three most
frequently used (based on the frequency of their use in the
shortlisted papers) theoretical underpinnings found in the VCC
literature and also suggested three alternative theoretical
underpinnings that can be used for future studies on VCC.
Thus, this part of the analysis addresses the third research
question of our study.
Overall, the analytical process adopted for our study is
consistent with that adopted for SLR papers (Shukla and
Jharkharia, 2013; Kolk et al., 2014; Srivastava et al., 2020). We
have explained each of our findings in detail in the
corresponding sections described below.
4. Findings of the systematic literature review
4.1 Value co-creation and related concepts
The practice of collaboration between customers and
companies has been prevalent for a long. Some of the terms that
have been widely used to explain the collaboration between
617
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 37 · Number 3 · 2022 · 612–628
companies and customers are “co-production”, “co-design”
and “co-innovation”. Though it appears that each of these
terms bears a close resemblance to the idea of “co-creation” in
principle, there exist, however, fundamental differences that
delineate each of the concepts from the basic idea of co-
creation.
To delineate the distinction between VCC and each of the
related terms, the understanding of the concepts of “value-in-
exchange” and “value-in-use” is essential. Ideally, both
companies and customers strive to create value for themselves
(Humphreys and Grayson, 2008). However, Marx (1867/
2001) argues that the major distinguishing factor between the
value creation activity of a company and a customer lies in the
type of value sought by each of them. That is, for a company,
the value being created is the “exchange value” or the “value-
in-exchange”, whereas, for customers, the value being created
is the “use value” or the “value-in-use” (Vargo et al., 2008).
Marx (1867/2001) further argues that “exchange value” is the
relative worth of an object, while “use value” is the value a
customer derives when a product has been able to meet their
wants. In effect, “exchange value” occurs at the point of sale,
whereas “use value” happens at the point of consumption
(Humphreys and Grayson, 2008). With the understanding of
these two concepts (i.e. “value-in-exchange” and “value-in-
use”), the distinction between VCC and the related concepts
can be put into a clear perspective. The summary of the
differences between these concepts is listed in Table 2.
4.1.1 Co-creation and co-production
The concept that is most closely linked with co-creation is co-
production. The concept of co-production, like co-creation,
emphasises the collaboration between a company and its
customers; however, the value created in co-production is
based on “value-in-exchange”, i.e. value being created at the
point of exchange of the product from a company to a customer
(Payne et al., 2008; Chathoth et al., 2013). That is, in the
process of co-production, value creation is expected to be
primarily the responsibility of the company. On the contrary, in
the process of co-creation, value creation is considered the joint
responsibility of the company and customers. That is, both the
company and the customers assume responsibility for the
resources that they share and the interactions that they carry
between themselves. Vargo and Lusch (2008) state that co-
production is “nested” within co-creation and, accordingly,
captures the participation of customers in the value creation
process, especially when goods are involved. They further state
that customers are always co-creators of value, while their
involvement in co-production is optional.
4.1.2 Co-creation and co-design
Co-design is considered a “specific instance” of co-creation
(Sanders and Stappers, 2008). The process of co-design is
limited to the collective creativity by customers and the
company in the design phase, whereas co-creation represents a
broader conceptualisation with a focus on the product usage
experience of customers. The process of co-design involves
collecting insights from customers to provide them with their
required services (Tommasetti et al., 2017). However, the
concept of co-design limits its periphery to the design phase of a
product and does not stretch to the ultimate value derived by
customers.
 Value co-creation Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Victor Saha, Praveen Goyal and Charles Jebarajakirthy Volume 37 · Number 3 · 2022 · 612–628

Table 2 Differentiation between value co-creation and its closely related constructs
Criteria Value co-creation Co-production Co-design Co-innovation
Basis of value Value created is based on Value created is based Value created is based on “value-in- Value created is based on “value-in-
creation “value-in-use” on “value-in- exchange” exchange”
exchange”
Onus of Value creation is considered to Value creation is Value creation is limited to the Value creation is limited to the
responsibility be the joint responsibility of the expected to be collective creativity of the actors in involvement of the actors in the
actors primarily the the design phase; however, the innovation process of a company;
responsibility of the responsibility of value creation however, the responsibility of value
service provider primarily rests with the service creation rests with the service provider
provider
Focus Focusses on the experiential Focusses on Focus is limited to the design phase of Focus is mainly on the novelty of the
value of the customers collaboration; the product; not on experiential value offering; not on experiential value
experiential value is
not the primary focus
Illustrative Ex: In early 2018, IKEA Ex: NHS North Ex: A garden products manufacturer Ex: Orange (a telecom company) co-
example launched a digital platform Cumbria County adopted a co-design approach for innovated an IoT-based fuel
named “Co-Create IKEA” to Council co-produced reducing the time required to develop monitoring system for optimisation of
encourage customers to an “open space event” a mobile engagement solution fuel consumption
develop new offerings at Brathay Trust

4.1.3 Co-creation and co-innovation
Co-innovation is about involving customers in the innovation
process of a company (Urban and von Hippel, 1988). It refers
to the process of leveraging new ideas, using the collaboration
between companies and customers to produce a new product,
service or even new ventures (Lee et al., 2012). The primary
aim of co-innovation is to create a new blue ocean where there
is no pre-existing competition (Kim and Mauborgne, 2005).
Unlike co-creation, co-innovation focusses mainly on the
novelty of the offering and its success does not rely on the
experiential value given to customers.
4.2 Distributing research papers in terms of specific
parameters
4.2.1 Distribution of research papers in terms of the time period
The 110 shortlisted papers were classified into five equal time
periods with three-year intervals for each period. The
breakdown of the papers across these time periods is presented
in Figure 3. The figure indicates that only 1.8% of the 110
reviewed papers were published during the period 2004–2006.
During the next three years, i.e. from 2007 to 2009, there was
an increase of 13.6% in this number. This can be attributed to
the growing interest in VCC amongst researchers and
managers and they are gaining an understanding of the
importance of the concept during that period. Evidently,
research on this area has witnessed a steady rise in subsequent
periods: 23.6% during 2010–2012, 26.4% during 2013–2015
and 34.5% during 2016–2019. With more firms adopting VCC
for their business, research on this area is expected to see a
steady rise.
4.2.2 Distribution of research papers in terms of countries
Classifying research papers across countries enables us to
understand the acceptance of the VCC concept across various
geographical regions. Accordingly, we distributed the papers on

Figure 3 Distribution of research papers in terms of the time period

40.0%
34.5%
35.0%

30.0%
26.4%
25.0% 23.6%

20.0%

15.0% 13.6%

10.0%

5.0%
1.8%
0.0%
2004-2006 2007-2009 2010-2012 2013-2015 2016-2019

618
 Value co-creation
Victor Saha, Praveen Goyal and Charles Jebarajakirthy
the basis of the country from which data were collected. For
this analysis, the country of data collection has been considered
and so only empirical papers were considered for this
distribution. This country-wise distribution is presented in
Table 2, which indicates that during the total time period
considered for this study, the USA records the highest number
of studies for a country followed by Italy. This shows that USA-
based studies have contributed most in terms of quantity to the
VCC literature compared to any other country.
We then analysed the periodic growth of the papers
published in VCC across developed and developing economies.
This classification is presented in Figure 4. The categorisation
of the countries into “developed economy” and “developing
economy” is based on the “World Economic Situation and
Prospects 2018” report of the United Nations [1]. This
classification rationale gives an overview of the importance of
the concept of VCC in these economies.
As evident in Table 2, the majority of research (around
81.3%) has been carried out in developed economies. Only
18.7% of the papers have been published from developing
economies, indicating the dearth of “value co-creation”
research in these countries. However, as depicted in Figure 4, a
steady rise in the number of publications in developing
economies hints at an increasing acceptance and recognition of
the concept in these countries. It is worth noting that VCC
research in developing nations is more industry-specific and
context-dominant.
4.2.3 Distribution of research papers in terms of application area
An area-wise distribution of the papers published on VCC
enables us to understand the industry focus of the concept, as
well as the application and adoption of the concept across
industries. The industry classification adopted for this study is
based on the “industry taxonomy” provided by the Global
Industry Classification Standard (GICS). This area-wise
distribution is presented in Table 3, which indicates that the
majority of the research papers (i.e. 60 papers) did not
adhere to any specific industry type. These research papers
have primarily focussed on building strong conceptual
frameworks with an aim of deriving results in the future that are
generalisable across diverse industries. From an industry
standpoint, the hotels, restaurants and leisure sector has witnessed
the highest number of research papers, followed by the internet
Figure 4 Distribution of research papers on the basis of developed and
developing economies
30
25
20
15
10
5 stakeholder theory.
0 concept of VCC has been conceptualised (Vargo and Lusch,
2004-2006 2007-2009 2010-2012 2013-2015 2016-2019
Developed Developing
619
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 37 · Number 3 · 2022 · 612–628
and direct marketing and then telecommunication services. In
essence, the majority of research papers on VCC have been
published in the B2C context. One interesting point observed in
the literature is that research has been carried out in the B2B
context without focussing on any particular industry type. This
indicates a gap in the literature relating to industry-specific
studies on VCC in the B2B context. Overall, the area-wise
distribution of research papers calls for a more contextualised
research on VCC across industries.
4.2.4 Distribution of research papers in terms of journals
Research papers on VCC have been widely published in
reputed journals of diverse disciplines ever since its
conceptualisation. This journal-wise distribution is presented
in Table 4, which indicates that as a single journal, the highest
number of papers have been published in Industrial Marketing
Management, followed by the Journal of Business Research. We
have chosen the widely-recognised ABDC classification
(2019) to show the importance and interest that VCC garners
amongst the top journals in business and management fields.
Of this distribution, 24.5% of the papers have been published
in “A ” journals, while 56.4% of the papers have been
published in “A” ranking journals. Meanwhile, 10% and
1.8% of papers have been published in “B” and “C” ranking
journals, respectively. Another 7.3% of papers have been
published in journals that are not yet indexed in ABDC
journal’s listing. Accordingly, the highest percentage of the
VCC papers have been published in “A” (i.e. 56.4%) ranking
journals. This distribution indicates that papers published in
“A” and “A ” journals dominate the evolution of the VCC
literature and that VCC research has received wider
recognition and acceptance amongst top researchers and
reputed journals in the world (Table 5).
4.2.5 Distribution of research papers in terms of methods adopted
The distribution of research papers in terms of methods
adopted gives a comprehensive understanding of the various
research methods relevant to investigate the concept (Marasco,
2008). Figure 5 presents the distribution of papers in terms of
the methods adopted. The majority of empirical studies on
VCC have adopted qualitative methods. That is, about 60% of
the empirical papers used qualitative methods, 24.3% used
quantitative methods and 15.7% used mixed methods. This
analysis indicates an imbalance when it comes to research
methods in VCC research, with a clear inclination towards
qualitative methods. Given the skewness towards qualitative
methods in VCC research, it appears that more quantitative
studies need to be carried out to quantitatively examine the
models proposed in the qualitative studies.
4.3 Theoretical perspectives used in the value co-
creation literature
Our analysis from the systematic review showed that the most
frequently used theoretical perspectives in the VCC literature
are S-D logic, practice theory, social exchange theory and
The S-D logic is the foundational theory based on which the
2008; Petri and Jacob, 2016). This theory, originally proposed
by Vargo and Lusch (2004), posits that the roles of the firm and
the customer in a value creation mechanism are intertwined,
 Value co-creation Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Victor Saha, Praveen Goyal and Charles Jebarajakirthy Volume 37 · Number 3 · 2022 · 612–628

Table 3 Country-wise distribution of research papers

Country 2004–2006 2007–2009 2010–2012 2013–2015 2016–2019 Total
USA 1 1 4 5 5 16
Italy 1 1 1 2 2 7
UK N/A 1 N/A 2 2 5
Australia N/A 1 N/A N/A 4 5
Sweden N/A 1 2 N/A 2 5
France N/A 1 1 1 1 4
Taiwan N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 3
Austria N/A N/A 2 N/A 1 3
China N/A 1 N/A 1 1 3
Finland N/A 1 1 1 N/A 3
Spain N/A N/A 1 1 1 3
Germany N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 3
India N/A N/A N/A 1 1 2
Portugal N/A N/A N/A 1 1 2
New Zealand N/A N/A N/A 1 1 2
Malaysia N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 1
Brazil N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 1
South Korea N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A 1
Singapore N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 1
Switzerland N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A 1
Israel N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A 1
Canada N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A 1
Bangladesh N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 1
Iran N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 1
Total 2 10 14 16 33 75

Table 4 Distribution of research papers on the basis of application area

Industry 2004–2006 2007–2009 2010–2012 2013–2015 2016–2019 Total
Generic (not referred to any 1 10 16 21 12 60
specific industry)
B2B space N/A 1 1 2 8 12
Hotels, restaurants and leisure N/A N/A 3 1 3 7
Internet and direct marketing N/A N/A 1 1 3 5
retail
Telecommunication services N/A 1 N/A N/A 3 4
Retailing N/A 1 N/A N/A 2 3
Public services N/A N/A 1 2 N/A 3
IT services N/A 2 N/A N/A 1 3
Textiles, apparel and luxury N/A N/A N/A 1 1 2
goods
Professional services N/A N/A 1 N/A 1 2
Health-care provider and N/A N/A 1 N/A 1 2
services
Metals and mining N/A N/A 1 1 N/A 2
Pharmaceuticals 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1
Consumer electronics N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 1
Household durables N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A 1
Politics (not included as part of N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 1
industrial classification)
Personal care N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A 1
Total 2 15 26 30 37 110

620
 Value co-creation Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Victor Saha, Praveen Goyal and Charles Jebarajakirthy Volume 37 · Number 3 · 2022 · 612–628

Table 5 Distribution of research papers across journals

Journal name Number of research papers Journal ranking
Industrial Marketing Management 12 A
Journal of Business Research 11 A
Journal of Service Theory and Practice 6 A
Journal of Services Marketing 5 A
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 5 A
Journal of Service Management 5 A
Journal of Marketing Management 4 A
European Business Review 3 B
Journal of Consumer Marketing 3 A
Journal of Interactive Marketing 3 A
Journal of Service Research 3 A
Management Decision 3 B
Marketing Theory 3 A
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 2 A
Annals of Tourism Research 2 A
Computers in Human Behaviour 2 A
European Management Journal 2 B
Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing 2 A
Marketing Intelligence and Planning 2 A
British Journal of Management 1 A
CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 1 N/A
Current Psychology 1 N/A
Electronic Commerce Research 1 A
Enterprise and Society 1 A
Expert Systems with Applications 1 C
Harvard Business Review 1 A
Information and Management 1 A
International Journal of Market Research 1 A
International Journal of Production Economics 1 A
International Journal of Research in Marketing 1 A
International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing 1 B
Journal of Brand Management 1 A
Journal of Business Ethics 1 A
Journal of Business Marketing Management 1 N/A
Journal of Consumer Culture 1 N/A
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 1 B
Journal of Product and Brand Management 1 A
Journal of Strategic Marketing 1 A
Marketing Letters 1 A
Marketing Review St Gallen 1 N/A
MIS Quarterly 1 A
Production and Operations Management 1 A
Promesthus: Critical studies in Innovation 1 N/A
Public Management Review 1 A
R&D Management 1 A
Sociology Compass 1 N/A
Strategy and Leadership 1 C
Systems Research and Behavioural Science 1 A
The Milkbank Quarterly 1 N/A
Service Industries Journal 1 B
Tourism Management 1 A
Total 110

rather than being separate and distinct (Yu et al., 2019). The 2018). Accordingly, this theory suggests firms focus on the use
fundamental proposition of the S-D logic is that value is always of operant resources (such as knowledge and skills) for
co-created by a firm and customers and that value can be engaging the customers in the VCC process (Lusch and Vargo,
realised only when customers use the service (Hughes et al., 2014; Busser and Shulga, 2018). Hence, given the role of this

621
 Value co-creation
Victor Saha, Praveen Goyal and Charles Jebarajakirthy
Figure 5 Distribution of research papers in terms of the method
adopted
25
20
15
10
5
0
2004-2006 2007-2009 2010-2012 2013-2015
Qualitave Quantave Mixed Conceptual
theory in the very origin of the VCC concept, many studies in
the literature have used S-D logic as an over-arching theoretical
underpinning to explain the VCC mechanism.
The practice theory posits that the representational practices of
individuals influence the way they interact with others (McColl-
Kennedy et al., 2012). That is the practices – such as routines,
tools, concepts and technologies – that are adopted by the actors
in a co-creating mechanism influence their interactions with
each other, which determine the strength of the VCC process.
Hence, the underpinnings of the practice theory have been used
to explain the importance of these practices during a VCC
mechanism (Kohtamäki and Rajala, 2016).
The social exchange theory posits that individuals enter into an
interaction only if the subjective evaluation of their perceived
benefits exceeds that of their perceived costs. Hence, in the
process of VCC, customers interact with a service provider with
the expectation of gaining suitable rewards (Fuller, 2010),
which can be either tangible or intangible or may even be
derived from the experience of the relationship itself. Hence,
the underpinnings of the social exchange theory have been used
to support this interactional contract between the involved co-
creating actors (Lee and van Dolen, 2015; Lin et al., 2017;
Breidbach and Maglio, 2016).
The stakeholder theory posits that an organisation needs
strong relationships with its stakeholders, as actions taken by
the organisation influence the interests of the stakeholders,
which, in turn, affect the company’s performance (Freeman,
1984; Voyer et al., 2017). In the context of VCC, this
proposition holds pertinence as the primary purpose of co-
creation mechanisms is to maximise the value created for both
the involved stakeholders, i.e. the organisation and its
stakeholders (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004; Grönroos,
2011). Hence, the underpinnings of the stakeholder theory have
been used to examine the dyadic relationship between the
service provider and the co-creating customers.
However, apart from these frequently used theories, some
alternative theories can be applied to VCC research in the
future. Our analysis showed that only 21 of the 110 studies
used for this review have used any theoretical underpinnings.
As there is a lack of theoretical lens in the VCC domain, this
review suggests some alternative theories to advance the
theoretical debate of the VCC literature. Current theoretical
underpinnings have just been used to explain the VCC concept
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 37 · Number 3 · 2022 · 612–628
in specific contexts or with certain perspectives in mind; when
the context changes or the perspective changes, those theories
may not be applicable anymore. This can be considered as a
limitation of the current theoretical underpinnings of VCC
research. For instance, while evaluating the cost and benefit
resulting to involved actors during a VCC process, social
exchange theory would be the most appropriate theory to
underpin the VCC research. However, if the perspective of
VCC research changes from evaluating costs-benefits to
practices adopted by the actors during their interaction, then
practice theory becomes the most relevant theoretical
underpinning. However, if the perspective changes to resource
integration amongst the involved actors, then none of these
2016-2019 mentioned theories can suitably justify or explain this
perspective. Thus, additional theories are required to explain
the emerging perspectives of VCC research. Accordingly, we
have proposed few alternative theories to investigate VCC from
different perspectives.
One such theory is the resource-based view, which posits that
firms require resource capabilities to create a competitive
advantage and improve their organisational performance
(Wernerfelt, 1984). Thus, VCC enables firms to use their own
resources and the shared resources of customers in achieving
sustainable competitive advantage. Hence, this theory can be
used to examine the role of participating customers’ resource
capabilities in attaining a sustainable competitive advantage for
the firm via the VCC.
Another alternative theory that can be used in the VCC
research is the broaden-and-build theory. This theory posits that
customers’ positive emotions broaden the scope of their actions
and lead them to build more resources. In the VCC process, if
co-creating customers have positive emotions towards the
overall co-creating process and towards the co-creating firm,
they are more likely to generate more resources (Lin et al.,
2017). Hence, this theory can be applied to examine the role of
customer emotions in the co-creation mechanism.
Finally, we suggest the use of self-determination theory in VCC
research. This theory posits that individuals’ motivation for an
activity depends upon the satisfaction of their inner
psychological needs (Deci and Ryan, 1980). In the VCC
process, it is important that the participating customers are
highly motivated. Co-creating customers will be motivated and
sustained in the co-creation process only if their basic
psychological needs and their self-interests are satisfied (Meyer
and Gagne, 2008). Hence, in the context of VCC, this theory
can be used to examine how the service-providing firm can
ensure sustained motivation amongst the co-creating
customers.
5. Discussion of developing trends and future
research directions
By synthesising the VCC literature, we have identified some
developing trends in VCC research and some directions for
future research in this area, which are briefly elaborated on in
this section.
5.1 Industry-specific value co-creation studies
During the analysis, a total of 46 studies built the foundation
for the developing trend “Industry-specific value co-creation
622
 Value co-creation
Victor Saha, Praveen Goyal and Charles Jebarajakirthy
studies”. Research on VCC has progressed from the
formulation and conceptualisation of the concept to addressing
more industry-specific issues that would facilitate organisations
to use the concept as a resource-integration process. The
industry-focus studies are more visible in the retail and tourism
industries (Alexander et al., 2009; Grissemann and Stokburger-
Sauer, 2012; Kang, 2014). These industries mainly viewed
VCC as a process to enhance customer engagement in their
firms and in their operations. As customers participate in a co-
creation process, they generate higher value for themselves,
which subsequently leads to their higher levels of engagement
with the firm (Jaakkola and Alexander, 2014; Oyner et al.,
2016). Accordingly, with firms harvesting positive engagement
levels from customers, VCC became an attractive mechanism
for many other firms in these industries. Gradually, with more
experience in and insights into VCC strategies, firms operating
in social media, telecommunication and the e-services space
have also adopted VCC to provide favourable experiences to
their customers and engage them in their operations (Kao et al.,
2016; Rosenthal and Brito, 2017; Agrawal and Rahman,
2017). Although industry-specific VCC studies are on the rise,
a cross-industry comparison of how VCC enhances customer
behavioural outcomes such as customer loyalty and
commitment has not yet been documented in the VCC
literature. Thus, future researchers can attempt such a cross-
industry comparison.
5.2 Value co-creation in the business-to-consumer
context
In the analysis stage, a total of 34 studies has suggested the
developing trend of “value co-creation in the B2C context”.
The majority of VCC research has been carried out in the B2C
context, where building customer relationships (Maklan et al.,
2008) and enhancing customer engagement (Roser et al., 2013)
were the focal points of the VCC process. The application and
implementation of both these concepts greatly differ between
the traditional context and VCC context (Prahalad and
Ramaswamy, 2004). In the traditional context, a market is
considered an aggregation of customers, where customer
relationship management and engagement are recognised as
tools or strategies for attracting and managing customers
(Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004). In contrast, in the VCC
context, customers are considered informed, empowered,
active and connected individuals (Ramaswamy, 2008). They
communicate amongst themselves and are no longer
dependent solely on communication from firms (Gustafsson
et al., 2012). This indicates in the VCC context, customers are
much more involved, engaged in and informed of the VCC
process and so cannot be targeted and managed like in
traditional contexts. In the VCC context, customers should be
treated as knowledgeable and so firms should move from a
product-centred approach to building pleasant customer
experiences (Vargo and Lusch, 2008). This requires a
convergence of production and consumption, which will enable
closer interactions between the company and customers and
provide pleasant experiences to customers (Payne et al., 2008;
Lee et al., 2012). Thus, future researchers should explore ways
and means of enabling the convergence of coproduction and
consumption through the process of VCC to ensure a superior
experience for the customers.
623
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 37 · Number 3 · 2022 · 612–628
5.3 Value co-creation in the business-to-business
context
A total of 12 studies suggested the developing trend of “value
co-creation in the B2B context”. The studies carried out on
VCC in the B2B context mainly focus on improving innovation
and enhancing supply chain capabilities (Hoecht and Trott,
2006; Roser et al., 2013). The VCC approach enables a more
trust-based and risk-sharing collaboration between two or more
autonomous firms that allows them to generate innovative ideas
through sharing their experience and knowledge (Swink, 2006;
Kuusisto and Riepula, 2011). In addition to creating innovative
ideas, VCC is applied for enhancing supply chain capabilities.
Instead of outsourcing the elements of a supply chain,
companies tend to adopt VCC to form partnerships amongst
firms to enhance performance or productivity at certain stages
of the supply chain (Roser et al., 2013; Schwetschke and
Durugbo, 2018). Accordingly, co-creation has emerged as an
alternative to outsourcing for enhancing supply-chain
capabilities.
However, creating an efficient co-creation environment in
the B2B context involves several challenges such as incurring
the cost of developing technical infrastructure (Schwetschke
and Durugbo, 2018). Thus, before forming a co-creation
partnership, it is important for companies to thoroughly assess
the costs and benefits of a proposed co-creation initiative. Only
if the benefits exceed the costs significantly will the co-creation
initiative prove to be successful for companies. However, a
comprehensive study has not yet been documented in the co-
creation literature that can help companies make such a cost-
benefit assessment of their co-creation strategy. Future
researchers can develop effective frameworks and models for
such cost-benefit assessments. Also related to this, the co-
creation literature has not provided any mechanism or
framework for assessing the extent of synergy amongst the
partnering companies. Before partnering in a co-creation
initiative, it is important for companies to assess to what extent
a synergy exists between the companies to successfully execute
a proposed co-creation initiative. Hence, further research is
required to explore the parameters and metrics through which
B2B companies can assess synergy formation amongst
themselves before forming a co-creation partnership.
5.4 Value co-creation in public services
Another prominent trend in the VCC literature is the
application of VCC in the public services sector. In the analysis
stage, a total of three studies suggested this developing trend
(theme). The VCC concept has gained much attention and
recognition in the public services sector (Kristensson et al.,
2008; Edvardsson et al., 2011; Osborne, 2018). In the public
services sector, end users are citizens (Saha and Goyal, 2019;
Voorberg et al., 2015). Moreover, the motive behind the
application of co-creation in the public services sector is not
profit-making; rather, it is about promoting societal well-being
(Anderson et al., 2013). It has been suggested that in the
context of the public services sector, the role of the government
is to provide service offerings to citizens who can use the
services and create value for themselves (Saha and Goyal, 2019;
Osborne, 2018). In the public services context, studies have
mainly focussed on investigating how VCC can enhance the
public service delivery mechanism and how co-creation strategy
 Value co-creation
Victor Saha, Praveen Goyal and Charles Jebarajakirthy
can be effectively implemented in this sector (Kokkinakos et al.,
2012; Brandsen and Pestoff, 2006).
However, there is a dearth of studies focussing on the
challenges in implementing VCC as a strategy in the public
services sector. Hence, future research should investigate how
this strategy can be effectively implemented in the public
services sector, as well as the challenges in implementing it.
Furthermore, no study has been carried out in the public
services context to measure the progress and success of any co-
creation initiative. Future research should, thus, develop
specific parameters and metrics that can efficiently measure the
success of any VCC initiative in the public services sector.
5.5 Value co-destruction
Another developing trend in VCC research is value co-
destruction. During the analysis, a total of six studies have
contributed to forming this developing trend (theme). The
literature suggests that VCC may sometimes lead to the co-
destruction of value (Plé and Chumpitaz C
aceres, 2010). A
study carried out in the luxury space has specified four major
themes (love, status, information and services) as contributing to
value co-destruction for luxury brands in the online context
(Quach and Thaichon, 2017). Despite very few attempts to
investigate value co-destruction (Echeverri and Skålén, 2011;
Smith, 2013; Stieler et al., 2014), the literature has not been
clear about the possible antecedents and outcomes of the co-
destruction of value. Thus, identifying the antecedents and
outcomes of value co-destruction is another insightful direction
for future research on VCC.
5.6 Value co-creation in the bottom of the pyramid
markets
A total of nine studies suggested the developing trend of “value
co-creation in the bottom of the pyramid (BOP) markets”.
VCC has been predominantly applied and investigated
amongst customers who are economically well-off. Researchers
articulate that people in the BOP market need to be considered
suppliers, producers, employees and also customers, which will
enable increasing BOP people’s income and reducing their
poverty (Habib and Zurawicki, 2010; Karnani, 2007). This
indicates a need to apply VCC strategies in the BOP market.
Accordingly, various business models devised by organisations
to reach the BOP markets need to be revised and reconsidered
in light of adopting VCC strategies. However, only a few
studies have investigated VCC amongst BOP customers,
indicating the potential need for more studies amongst BOP
customers.
6. Academic implications
Our study has some important academic implications. Firstly,
although the VCC literature has grown in the past couple of
decades, this literature is quite fragmented. Thus, we have
adopted an SLR approach to consolidate the previous studies
on VCC. This synthesis demonstrates the progress and
development of the VCC literature in terms of time period,
countries, application areas, journals and methods adopted.
This synthesis would also provide researchers with insightful
directions to undertake future research endeavours for
investigating the process of VCC in diverse business contexts.
624
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 37 · Number 3 · 2022 · 612–628
Secondly, our study has delineated the distinction between
VCC and some of the commonly used related terms that
denote the collaboration between companies and customers.
Though VCC falls within the broader spectrum of
collaboration, the practice of VCC differs from the other forms
of collaboration such as “co-production”, “co-design” and “co-
innovation”. We have attempted to distinguish these terms
from VCC and given a clearer meaning to the concept of VCC.
This distinction would help in instilling clarity in the academic
literature with respect to the current interchangeable usage of
these terms in the extant literature.
Thirdly, our study has identified major developing trends in
the VCC literature and suggested insightful future research
directions emerging out of those trends. These trends and
future research directions have been presented in section “5.
Discussion of developing trends and future research
directions”. These developing trends indicate the thrust areas
this concept has mostly focussed on. However, gaps exist in the
extant literature relating to each of these areas, thus warranting
future research. These future research directions will help in
further advancing VCC research.
Finally, in section “4.3 Theoretical perspectives used in
the VCC literature”, our study discusses some frequently
used theoretical perspectives of the VCC research. These
theoretical perspectives portray the various theoretical
underpinnings of the process of VCC. Further, in this section,
we suggest some alternative theoretical underpinnings that may
be relevant to support VCC research in the future. These
theoretical underpinnings will contribute to strengthening the
theoretical grounding of the VCC literature in the coming years
and decades.
7. Practical implications
Apart from these academic implications, our study has some
important practical implications for marketers who intend to
adopt VCC as a strategy for their business. These practical
implications are briefly elaborated on below.
Firstly, this study provides practitioners with a broader
understanding of the concept of VCC. For instance, the
illustration of the concept of VCC will help managers to
understand how they can co-create value with customers. To
further explore the concept, they can refer to the various
seminal studies and business world examples that we have
provided in our manuscript. A proper understanding of the
process of VCC can enable practitioners to implement it
successfully in their own specific business contexts.
Secondly, our study shows that VCC has been implemented
more pervasively as a business strategy in the retail and tourism
industries. While companies such as Starbucks, Dell and Lego, are
implementing VCC as a resource-integrating mechanism in their
own businesses, many other companies in their respective
industries are yet to take full advantage of the process. Accordingly,
managers and practitioners in other industries (e.g. FMCG,
automobiles, telecommunication, etc.) are encouraged to study
various challenges and key performance metrics persistent in these
two industries (i.e. retail and tourism) relating to VCC strategy,
prior to implementing it in their own business contexts.
Thirdly, we explain how VCC has been effectively used in the
public services sector. Governments and public services
 Value co-creation
Victor Saha, Praveen Goyal and Charles Jebarajakirthy
organisations can draw from our stated insights to engage people
to provide effective public services through the VCC process. For
instance, the government authorities can draft policies in
consultation with the involved citizens and more importantly,
citizens and the public services organisations can assume equal
responsibility for implementing these policies. For the citizens to
assume such a responsibility, they will have to be provided with
adequate incentives by the government and public services
organisations (Saha and Goyal, 2019).
Finally, we show that when companies and customers
collaborate, it would not necessarily result in the creation of value.
There is also a possibility for the destruction of value, as expressed
by the concept of “value co-destruction”. Thus, managers and
practitioners should be very careful while implementing the VCC
process and meticulously ensure the creation (and not destruction)
of value at every stage of the process. Standard operating procedures
can be devised and efficient communication infrastructures can be
developed to ensure that value is being maximised (vs destructed)
through the co-creation process.
8. Limitations and conclusions
Though we have carried out a comprehensive review of the
literature on VCC, yet our study has certain limitations that
are worth acknowledging. Firstly, we have used an SLR technique
for reviewing the extant literature on VCC. Accordingly, the
results and analysis of our study have been restricted to only those
articles that have satisfied our delimiting criteria. Thus, the
findings of this study cannot be generalised for the existing VCC
literature, as the review has been conducted on the basis of certain
specified delimiting (inclusion and exclusion) criteria. Further,
conference papers, books, working papers and dissertations were
not considered for this review. Also, only papers written in the
English language were selected for this study. This might exclude
some important studies written in any other languages. Thus, this
too stands as a limitation for our study.
However, our study has integrated the VCC literature and
has portrayed how this concept has gradually advanced over
time. Following the synthesis of the literature, our study has
demonstrated the main trends of VCC research and has given
several future directions for potential research. This, we
believe, is the primary silver lining of our study.
Note
1 “World Economic Situation and Prospects 2018” report of
the United Nations, retrieved on 22November 2019 from
https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wpcontent/
uploads/sites/45/publication/WESP2018_Full_Web-1.pdf
References
Agrawal, A.K. and Rahman, Z. (2017), “CCV scale:
development and validation of customer co-created value
scale in e-services”, Current Psychology, pp. 1-17.
Alexander, A., Nell, D., Bailey, A.R. and Shaw, G. (2009),
“The co-creation of a retail innovation: shoppers and the
early supermarket in Britain”, Enterprise and Society, Vol. 10
No. 3, pp. 529-558.
625
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 37 · Number 3 · 2022 · 612–628
Anderson, L., Ostrom, A.L., Corus, C., Fisk, R.P., Gallan, A.S.,
Giraldo, M. and Shirahada, K. (2013), “Transformative
service research: an agenda for the future”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 66 No. 8, pp. 1203-1210.
Boyle, E. (2007), “A process model of brand cocreation: brand
management and research implications”, Journal of Product
& Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 122-131.
Brandsen, T. and Pestoff, V. (2006), “Co-production, the third
sector and the delivery of public services: an introduction”,
Public Management Review, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 493-501.
Breidbach, C.F. and Maglio, P.P. (2016), “Technology-
enabled value co-creation: an empirical analysis of actors,
resources, and practices”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 56, pp. 73-85.
Busser, J.A. and Shulga, L.V. (2018), “Co-created value:
Multidimensional scale and nomological network”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 65, pp. 69-86.
Chathoth, P., Altinay, L., Harrington, R.J., Okumus, F. and
Chan, E.S. (2013), “Co-production versus co-creation: a
process based continuum in the hotel service context”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 32,
pp. 11-20.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1980), “Self-determination
theory: when mind mediates behaviour”, The Journal of Mind
and Behavior, pp. 33-43.
Delpechitre, D., Beeler-Connelly, L.L. and Chaker, N.N.
(2018), “Customer value co-creation behavior: A dyadic
exploration of the influence of salesperson emotional
intelligence on customer participation and citizenship
behaviour”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 92, pp. 9-24.
Durugbo, C. and Pawar, K. (2014), “A unified model of the
co-creation process”, Expert Systems with Applications,
Vol. 41 No. 9, pp. 4373-4387.
Echeverri, P. and Skålén, P. (2011), “Co-creation and co-
destruction: a practice-theory based study of interactive
value formation”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 351-373.
Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B. and Gruber, T. (2011),
“Expanding understanding of service exchange and value co-
creation: a social construction approach”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 327-339.
Etgar, M. (2008), “A descriptive model of the consumer co-
production process”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 97-108.
Fink, A. (1998), “Conducting Literature Research Reviews: From
Paper to the Internet”, Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks,
CA.
Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder
Approach, Pitman, Boston.
Galvagno, M. and Dalli, D. (2014), “Theory of value co-
creation: a systematic literature review”, Managing Service
Quality, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 643-683.
Goyal, P., Rahman, Z. and Kazmi, A.A. (2013), “Corporate
sustainability performance and firm performance research:
literature review and future research agenda”, Management
Decision, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 361-379.
Grissemann, U.S. and Stokburger-Sauer, N.E. (2012),
“Customer co-creation of travel services: the role of company
support and customer satisfaction with the co-creation
 Value co-creation
Victor Saha, Praveen Goyal and Charles Jebarajakirthy
performance”, Tourism Management, Vol. 33 No. 6,
pp. 1483-1492.
Grönroos, C. (2008), “Service logic revisited: who creates
value? And who co-creates?”, European Business Review,
Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 298-314.
Grönroos, C. (2011), “Value co-creation in service logic: a
critical analysis”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 279-301.
Grönroos, C. and Helle, P. (2010), “Adopting a service logic in
manufacturing: conceptual foundation and metrics for
mutual value creation”, Journal of Service Management,
Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 564-590.
Grönroos, C. and Ravald, A. (2009), “Marketing and the logic
of service: value facilitation, value creation and co-creation,
and their marketing implications”, Hanken School of
Economics working paper. WP/542-542.
Grönroos, C. and Gummerus, J. (2014), “The service
revolution and its marketing implications: service logic vs
service-dominant logic”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 24
No. 3, pp. 206-229.
Gustafsson, A., Kristensson, P. and Witell, L. (2012),
“Customer co-creation in service innovation: a matter of
communication?”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 23
No. 3, pp. 311-327.
Habib, M. and Zurawicki, L. (2010), “The bottom of the
pyramid: key roles for businesses”, Journal of Business &
Economics Research, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 23-32.
Harland, C.M., Lamming, R.C., Walker, H., Phillips, W.E.,
Caldwell, N.D., Johnsen, T.E. and Zheng, J. (2006),
“Supply management: is it a discipline?”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 26
No. 7, pp. 730-753.
Hein, A., Weking, J., Schreieck, M., Wiesche, M., Böhm, M.
and Krcmar, H. (2019), “Value co-creation practices in
business-to-business platform ecosystems”, Electronic
Markets, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 503-518.
Hoecht, A. and Trott, P. (2006), “Innovation risks of strategic
outsourcing”, Technovation, Vol. 26 Nos 5/6, pp. 672-681.
Hollebeek, L.D., Srivastava, R.K. and Chen, T. (2019), “SD
logic–informed customer engagement: integrative
framework, revised fundamental propositions, and
application to CRM”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 161-185.
Hoyer, W.D., Chandy, R., Dorotic, M., Krafft, M. and
Singh, S.S. (2010), “Consumer cocreation in new
product development”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13
No. 3, pp. 283-296.
Hughes, T., Vafeas, M. and Hilton, T. (2018), “Resource
integration for co-creation between marketing agencies and
clients”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 Nos 5/6,
pp. 1329-1354.
Humphreys, A. and Grayson, K. (2008), “The intersecting
roles of consumer and producer: a critical perspective on co-
production, co-creation and presumption”, Sociology
Compass, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 963-980.
Jaakkola, E. and Alexander, M. (2014), “The role of
customer engagement behavior in value co-creation: a
service system perspective”, Journal of Service Research,
Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 247-261.
626
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 37 · Number 3 · 2022 · 612–628
Kang, M.J.Y. (2014), “Repurchase loyalty for customer social
co-creation e-marketplaces”, Journal of Fashion Marketing
and Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 452-464.
Kao, T.Y., Yang, M.H., Wu, J.T.B. and Cheng, Y.Y. (2016),
“Co-creating value with consumers through social media”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 141-151.
Karnani, A. (2007), “The mirage of marketing to the bottom of
the pyramid: how the private sector can help alleviate
poverty”, California Management Review, Vol. 49 No. 4,
pp. 90-111.
Kim, C.W. and Mauborgne, R. (2005), “Value innovation: a
leap into the blue ocean”, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 26
No. 4, pp. 22-28.
Kohtamäki, M. and Rajala, R. (2016), “Theory and practice of
value co-creation in B2B systems”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 56, pp. 4-13.
Kolk, A., Rivera-Santos, M. and Rufín, C. (2014), “Reviewing a
decade of research on the ‘base/bottom of the pyramid’ (BOP)
concept”, Business & Society, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 338-377.
Kokkinakos, P., Koussouris, S., Panopoulos, D., Askounis, D.,
Ramfos, A., Georgousopoulos, C. and Wittern, E. (2012),
“Citizens collaboration and co-creation in public service
delivery: the cockpit project”, International Journal of
Electronic Government Research (Research), Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 33-62.
Kristensson, P., Matthing, J. and Johansson, N. (2008), “Key
strategies for the successful involvement of customers in the
co-creation of new technology-based services”, International
Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 474-491.
Kushwah, S., Shree, D. and Sagar, M. (2017), “Evolution of a
framework of co-creation in political marketing: select
cases”, International Review on Public and Nonprofit
Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 427-445.
Kuusisto, A. and Riepula, M. (2011), “Customer interaction
in service innovation: seldom intensive but often decisive.
Case studies in three business service sectors”,
International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 55
Nos 1/2, p. 171.
Lee, S.M., Olson, D.L. and Trimi, S. (2012), “Co-innovation:
convergenomics, collaboration, and co-creation for
organizational values”, Management Decision, Vol. 50 No. 5,
pp. 817-831.
Lee, H.H.M. and van Dolen, W. (2015), “Creative
participation: collective sentiment in online co-creation
communities”, Information & Management, Vol. 52 No. 8,
pp. 951-964.
Lin, Z., Chen, Y. and Filieri, R. (2017), “Resident-tourist
value co-creation: the role of residents’ perceived tourism
impacts and life satisfaction”, Tourism Management, Vol. 61,
pp. 436-442.
Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (2014), The Service-Dominant
Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and Directions, Routledge.
McColl-Kennedy, J.R., Vargo, S.L., Dagger, T.S., Sweeney, J.C.
and Kasteren, Y.V. (2012), “Health care customer value
cocreation practice styles”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 15
No. 4, pp. 370-389.
Maklan, S., Knox, S. and Ryals, L. (2008), “New trends in
innovation and customer relationship management: a
 Value co-creation
Victor Saha, Praveen Goyal and Charles Jebarajakirthy
challenge for market researchers”, International Journal of
Market Research, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 221-240.
Marasco, A. (2008), “Third-party logistics: a literature
review”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 113 No. 1, pp. 127-147.
Marx, K., (1867/2001) “Capital: a critique of political
economy”, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England, Penguin
Books in association with New Left Review, New York, NY.
Meredith, J. (1993), “Theory building through conceptual
methods”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 3-11.
Meyer, J.P. and Gagne, M. (2008), “Employee engagement
from a self-determination theory perspective”, Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 60-62.
Moore, G.C. and Benbasat, I. (1991), “Development of an
instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an
information technology innovation”, Information Systems
Research, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 192-222.
Ng, I., Badinelli, R., Polese, F., Nauta, P.D., Löbler, H. and
Halliday, S. (2012), “SD logic research directions and
opportunities: the perspective of systems”, Marketing Theory,
Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 213-217.
Osborne, S.P. (2018), “From public service-dominant logic to
public service logic: are public service organizations capable
of co-production and value co-creation?”, Public
Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 225-231.
Oyner, O. and Korelina, A. (2016), “The influence of customer
engagement in value co-creation on customer satisfaction”,
Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 327-345.
Payne, A.F., Storbacka, K. and Frow, P. (2008), “Managing
the co-creation of value”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 83-96.
Peñaloza, L. and Mish, J. (2011), “The nature and processes of
market co-creation in triple bottom line firms: Leveraging
insights from consumer culture theory and service dominant
logic”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 9-34.
Petri, J. and Jacob, F. (2016), “The customer as enabler of
value (co)-creation in the solution business”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 56, pp. 63-72.
Plé, L. and Chumpitaz C
aceres, R. (2010), “Not always co-
creation: introducing interactional co-destruction of value in
service-dominant logic”, Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 430-437.
Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004), “Co-creation
experiences: the next practice in value creation”, Journal of
Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 5-14.
Quach, S. and Thaichon, P. (2017), “From connoisseur luxury
to mass luxury: value co-creation and co-destruction in the
online environment”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 81,
pp. 163-172.
Ramaswamy, V. (2008), “Co-creating value through
customers’ experiences: the nike case”, Strategy &
Leadership, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 9-14.
Ramaswamy, V. (2011), “It's about human experiences. . . and
beyond, to co-creation”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 195-196.
Ramaswamy, V. and Gouillart, F. (2010), “Building the co-
creative enterprise”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 88
No. 10, pp. 100-109.
627
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 37 · Number 3 · 2022 · 612–628
Ramaswamy, V. and Ozcan, K. (2018), “What is co-creation?
An interactional creation framework and its implications for
value creation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 84,
pp. 196-205.
Ranjan, K.R. and Read, S. (2016), “Value co-creation: concept
and measurement”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 290-315.
Romero, D. and Molina, A. (2011), “Collaborative networked
organisations and customer communities: value co-creation
and co-innovation in the networking era”, Production
Planning & Control, Vol. 22 Nos 5/6, pp. 447-472.
Rosenthal, B. and Brito, E.P.Z. (2017), “The Brand meaning
co-creation process on facebook”, Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 923-936.
Roser, T., DeFillippi, R. and Samson, A. (2013), “Managing
your co-creation mix: co-creation ventures in distinctive
contexts”, European Business Review, Vol. 25 No. 1,
pp. 20-41.
Saha, V. and Goyal, P. (2019), “How Co-creation drives the
success of public service initiatives? A case-study based
analysis”, Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing,
pp. 1-21.
Saha, V., Mani, V. and Goyal, P. (2020), “Emerging trends in the
literature of value co-creation: a bibliometric analysis”,
Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 981-1002.
Sanders, E.B.N. and Stappers, P.J. (2008), “Co-creation and the
new landscapes of design”, CoDesign, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 5-18.
Schwetschke, S. and Durugbo, C. (2018), “How firms
synergise: understanding motives and management of co-
creation for business-to-business services”, International
Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 76 Nos 3/4,
pp. 258-284.
Shukla, M. and Jharkharia, S. (2013), “Agri-fresh produce
supply chain management: a state-of-the-art literature
review”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 114-158.
Skålén, P., Pace, S. and Cova, B. (2015), “Firm-brand
community value co-creation as alignment of practices”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 Nos 3/4, pp. 596-620.
Smith, M.A. (2013), “The value co-destruction process: a
customer resource perspective”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 47 Nos 11/12, pp. 889-1909.
Srivastava, A., Mukherjee, S. and Jebarajakirthy, C. (2020),
“Aspirational consumption at the bottom of pyramid: a
review of literature and future research directions”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 110, pp. 246-259.
Stieler, M., Weismann, F. and Germelmann, C.C. (2014),
“Co-destruction of value by spectators: the case of silent
protests”, European Sport Management Quarterly, Vol. 14
No. 1, pp. 72-86.
Sugathan, P., Ranjan, K.R. and Mulky, A.G. (2017), “Atypical
shifts post-failure: Influence of co-creation on attribution
and future motivation to co-create”, Journal of Interactive
Marketing, Vol. 38, pp. 64-81.
Swink, M. (2006), “Building collaborative innovation capability”,
Research-Technology Management, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 37-47.
Tommasetti, A., Troisi, O. and Vesci, M. (2017), “Measuring
customer value co-creation behavior”, Journal of Service
Theory and Practice, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 930-950.
 Value co-creation
Victor Saha, Praveen Goyal and Charles Jebarajakirthy
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a
methodology for developing evidence-informed
management knowledge by means of systematic review”,
British Journal of Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222.
Urban, G.L. and Von Hippel, E. (1988), “Lead user analyses
for the development of new industrial products”,
Management Science, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 569-582.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “The four service marketing
myths: remnants of a goods-based, manufacturing model”,
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 324-335.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2008), “Service-dominant logic:
continuing the evolution”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Vargo, S.L., Maglio, P.P. and Akaka, M.A. (2008), “On value
and value co-creation: a service systems and service logic
perspective”, European Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 145-152.
Verma, R., Gustafsson, A., Kristensson, P. and Witell, L.
(2012), “Customer co-creation in service innovation: a
matter of communication?”, Journal of Service Management,
Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 311-327.
Voorberg, W.H., Bekkers, V.J. and Tummers, L.G. (2015), “A
systematic review of co-creation and co-production:
embarking on the social innovation journey”, Public
Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 9, pp. 333-1357.
Voyer, B.G., Kastanakis, M.N. and Rhode, A.K. (2017), “Co-
creating stakeholder and Brand identities: a cross-cultural
consumer perspective”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 70,
pp. 399-410.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984), “A resource-based view of the
firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 171-180.
Williams, J. and Aitken, R. (2011), “The service-dominant
logic of marketing and marketing ethics”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 102 No. 3, pp. 439-454.
Yu, J., Wen, Y., Jin, J. and Zhang, Y. (2019), “Towards a service-
dominant platform for public value co-creation in a smart city:
Evidence from two metropolitan cities in China”, Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 142, pp. 168-182.
Further reading
Bharti, K., Agrawal, R. and Sharma, V. (2014), “What drives
the customer of world’s largest market to participate in value
co-creation?”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 32
No. 4, pp. 413-435.
Enkel, E., Kausch, C. and Gassmann, O. (2005), “Managing
the risk of customer integration”, European Management
Journal, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 203-213.
Füller, J. (2010), “Refining virtual co-creation from a
consumer perspective”, California Management Review,
Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 98-122.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
628
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 37 · Number 3 · 2022 · 612–628
Gebauer, H., Johnson, M. and Enquist, B. (2010), “Value co-
creation as a determinant of success in public transport
services: a study of the swiss federal railway operator (SBB)”,
managing service quality”, Managing Service Quality: An
International Journal, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 511-530.
Gentile, C., Spiller, N. and Noci, G. (2007), “How to sustain the
customer experience: an overview of experience components
that co-create value with the customer”, European Management
Journal, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 395-410.
Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2000), “Co-opting
customer competence”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78
No. 1, pp. 79-90.
About the authors
Victor Saha is a Doctoral student at the Department of
Management, Birla Institute of Technology & Science (BITS)
Pilani. He has completed his MBA in Marketing and has
worked as a Research Associate at the Department of Business
Administration, Tripura University in an Indian Council of
Social Sciences sponsored project. He has published in
journals such as the Journal of Non-profit and Public Sector
Marketing; Benchmarking: An International Journal; South
Asian Journal of Management and the Indian Journal of
Marketing. His areas of interest include services marketing,
consumer behaviour and public service management.
Dr Praveen Goyal is an Assistant Professor in Management
at the Department of Management, Birla Institute of
Technology & Science (BITS), Pilani. He has published
papers in the area of CSR and corporate sustainability in
Management Decision; Journal of Non-profit and Public Sector
Marketing; Benchmarking: An International Journal; Journal of
Modelling in Management; Sustainable Production and
Consumption, etc. He is the recipient of the “Emerald Literati
Network Awards for Excellence” 2016. He has been a Guest
Editor for a special issue on Evidence-based Processes in
Business and Systems in the International Journal of Business
and Systems Research and “Evidence-based management
practices in accounting and finance”, in the International
Journal of Management Practice.
Dr Charles Jebarajakirthy is a Lecturer in Marketing at
Griffith Business School, Gold Coast, Australia. His research
interests are in the areas of retailing, consumer behaviour and
services marketing. Charles’s research has been published in
the Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Asia
Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, International Journal
of Consumer Studies, Journal of Young Consumers, International
Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing and
International Journal of Bank Marketing, etc. Charles
Jebarajakirthy is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: c.jebarajakirthy@griffith.edu.au