Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding the Corporate Use of IT Security Labels for IoT Products and Services: A Literature Review

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Digital Transformation in the Viral Age (WeB 2022)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 508))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 23 Accesses

Abstract

The Internet of Things (IoT) has become part of everyday life and recorded an increasing number of users. However, security concerns have been raised regardless of the many benefits of the technology. Especially for consumers in online shopping, it is difficult to distinguish between more and less safe products. One proposal is to carry a security label to help consumers know which digital products to trust. Prior research only analyzes the impact of such labels from a consumer’s perspective (i.e., the impact of security labeling on online consumer behavior). We currently lack an understanding of a manufacturer’s perspective. Therefore, we conduct a literature review to identify factors influencing the decision to adopt security labels.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Kim, Y., Oh, H., Kang, S.: Proof of concept of home IoT connected vehicles. Sensors 17(6), 1289 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3390/s17061289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bello, O., Zeadally, S., Badra, M.: Network layer inter-operation of Device-to-Device communication technologies in Internet of Things (IoT). Ad Hoc Netw. 57, 52–62 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adhoc.2016.06.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. AlHogail, A.: Improving IoT technology adoption through improving consumer trust. Technologies 6(3), 64 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies6030064

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Alaa, M., Zaidan, A.A., Zaidan, B.B., Talal, M., Kiah, M.: A review of smart home applications based on Internet of Things. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 97, 48–65 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2017.08.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Feng, S., Setoodeh, P., Haykin, S.: Smart home: cognitive interactive people-centric Internet of Things. IEEE Commun. Mag. 55, 34–39 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2017.1600682CM

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Isyanto, H., Arifin, A.S., Suryanegara, M.: Design and implementation of IoT-based smart home voice commands for disabled people using Google assistant. In: 2020 International Conference on Smart Technology and Applications (ICoSTA), Surabaya, Indonesia, pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICoSTA48221.2020.1570613925

  7. Park, J.-S., Jang, G.-J., Kim, J.-H., Kim, S.-H.: Acoustic interference cancellation for a voice-driven interface in smart TVs. IEEE Trans. Consum. Electron. 59(1), 244–249 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/TCE.2013.6490266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Knips, J., Gries, C.-I. and Wernick, C.: Consumer-IoT in Deutschland. Anwendungsbereiche und möglicher Regelungsbedarf. WIK Diskussionsbeitrag, No. 471 (2020). http://hdl.handle.net/10419/228684

  9. Statista: Digital Market Outlook. Prognose zur Anzahl der Smart Home Haushalte nach Segmenten in Europa für die Jahre 2017 bis 2025 (in Millionen), p. 4 (2021). https://de.statista.com/statistik/studie/id/6638/dokument/smart-home/

  10. Stenkamp, D.: TÜV Consumer IoT Zertifizierung – mehr Sicherheit für smarte Produkte. Pressekonferenz (2021). https://www.tuev-verband.de/?tx_epxelo_file%5Bid%5D=831592&cHash=1d5eb42a2fe855c4182fe148983f8185

  11. Raffman, M.S., Russo, A.H.: Mitigating transactional risk in the Internet of Things. J. Private Equity 21, 65–73 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3905/jpe.2018.21.2.065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. businesswire: Strategy Analytics: Global Smart Home Market Roaring Back in 2021 (2022). https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210706005692/en/Strategy-Analytics-Global-Smart-Home-Market-Roaring-Back-in-2021

  13. Badran, H.: IoT Security and Consumer Trust. In: Proceedings of the 20th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (dg.o 2019), pp. 133–140. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3325112.3325234

  14. Kolias, C., Kambourakis, G., Stavrou, A., Voas, J.: DDoS in the IoT: Mirai and other botnets. Computer 50(7), 80–84 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/mc.2017.201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Khan, W.Z., Aalsalem, M.Y., Khan, M.K.: Communal acts of IoT consumers: a potential threat to security and privacy. IEEE Trans. Consum. Electron. 65(1), 64–72 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/TCE.2018.2880338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Maras, M.-H.: Internet of Things: security and privacy implications. Int. Data Privacy Law 5(2), 99–104 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipv004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Myeonggeon, L., Kyungmook, L., Jaewoo, S., Seong-je, C., Jongmoo, C.: Security threat on wearable services: empirical study using a commercial smartband. In: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics-Asia (ICCE-Asia), Seoul, Korea (South), pp. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCE-Asia.2016.7804766

  18. Woods, D.W., Moore, T.: Cyber warranties: market fix or marketing trick? Commun. ACM 63(4), 104–107 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3360310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Yildirim, H., Ali-Eldin, A.M.: A model for predicting user intention to use wearable IoT devices at the workplace. J. King Saud Univ. Comput. Inform. Sci. 31(4), 497–505 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2018.03.001

  20. Johnson, S.D., Blythe, J.M., Manning, M., Wong, G.T.W.: The impact of IoT security labelling on consumer product choice and willingness to pay. PLoS ONE 15, e0227800 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Emami-Naeini, P., Dixon, H., Agarwal, Y., Cranor, L.F.: Exploring how privacy and security factor into IoT device purchase behavior. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2019). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, vol. 534, pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300764

  22. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD): United Nations Guidelines for Consumer Protection (2016). https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ditccplpmisc2016d1_en.pdf

  23. Garg, V.: A lemon by any other label. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Information Systems Security and Privacy (ICISSP 2021), pp. 558–565 (2021). https://doi.org/10.5220/0010295205580565

  24. Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik (BSI): Bericht zum Digitalen Verbraucherschutz 2021 (2022). https://www.bsi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/BSI/Publikationen/DVS-Berichte/dvs-bericht_2021.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=4

  25. Halderman, J.A.: To strengthen security, change developers’ incentives. IEEE Secur. Priv. 8(2), 79–82 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2010.85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Serabian, D.: Consumer Protection and Cybersecurity: The Consumer Education Gap (2015). https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/brookings_pubs/33/

  27. Jentzsch, N.: Was können Datenschutz-Gütesiegel leisten? Wirtschaftsdienst 92, 413–419 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10273-012-1397-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Blythe, J.M., Johnson, S.D.: A systematic review of crime facilitated by the consumer Internet of Things. Secur. J. 34, 97–125 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-019-00211-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Dold, M., Krieger, T.: Cyber-security aus ordnungspolitischer Sicht: Verfügungsrechte. Wettbewerb und Nudges. Wirtschaftsdienst 97, 559–565 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10273-017-2176-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Enste, D., Ewers, M., Heldman, C. and Schneider, R.: Verbraucherschutz und Verhaltensökonomik. Zur Psychologie von Vertrauen und Kontrolle. IW-Analysen, No. 106 (2016). http://hdl.handle.net/10419/157153

  31. Spindler, G.: Behavioral economics und Verbraucherschutz sowie Sicherheitsrecht in der IT-Welt. Wirtschaftsdienst 100, 97–99 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10273-020-2576-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kenning, P., Wobker, I.: Ist der “mündige Verbraucher” eine Fiktion? Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik 14(2), 282–300 (2013). https://doi.org/10.5771/1439-880X-2013-2-282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Micklitz, H.-W., Oehler, A., Piorkowsky, M.-B., Reisch, L., Strünck, C.: Der vertrauende, der verletzliche oder der verantwortungsvolle Verbraucher? Stellungnahme des Wissenschaftlichen Beirats Verbraucher- und Ernährungspolitik beim BMELV (2010). https://www.vzbv.de/sites/default/files/downloads/Strategie_verbraucherpolitik_Wiss_BeiratBMELV_2010.pdf

  34. Reisch, L., Büchel, D., Joost, G., Zander-Hayrat, H.: Sachverständigenrat für Verbraucherfragen: Digitale Welt und Handel. Verbraucher im personalisierten Online-Handel, Berlin (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Simon, H.A.: Rationality in psychology and economics. J. Bus. 59(2), 209–224 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Levine, J., Chan, K.M., Satterfield, T.: From rational actor to efficient complexity manager: exorcising the ghost of Homo economicus with a unified synthesis of cognition research. Ecol. Econ. 114, 22–32 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Simon, H.A.: A behavioral model of rational choice. Q. J. Econ. 69(1), 99 (1955). https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Simon, H.A.: Bounded Rationality. In: Eatwell, J., Milgate, M., Newman, P. (eds.) Utility and Probability, pp. 15–18. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-20568-4_5

  39. Gao, J., Zhang, C., Wang, K., Ba, S.: Understanding online purchase decision making: the effects of unconscious thought, information quality, and information quantity. Decis. Support. Syst. 53(4), 772–781 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.05.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Murray, K.B.: A test of services marketing theory: consumer information acquisition activities. J. Mark. 55(1), 10–25 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299105500102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Rubik, F., Weskamp, C.: Verbraucherschutz durch Produktkennzeichnung. Gutachten im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Wirtschaft (Forschungsauftrag Nr. 24/94) (1996). https://www.ioew.de/fileadmin/_migrated/tx_ukioewdb/IOEW_SR_098_Verbraucherschutz_durch_ProduktkennzeichnungTeil1.pdf

  42. Akerlof, G.A.: The Market for “Lemons”. quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Q. J. Econ. 84(3), 488–500 (1970). https://doi.org/10.2307/1879431

  43. Jahn, G., Schramm, M., Spiller, A.: The reliability of certification: quality labels as a consumer policy tool. J. Consum. Policy 28, 53–73 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-004-7298-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. OECD: Key Issues for Digital Transformation in the G20. Report prepared for a joint G20 German Presidency/OECD conference. OECD Publishing, Paris (2017). https://www.oecd.org/G20/key-issues-for-digital-transformation-in-the-G20.pdf

  45. Thorun, C., Diels, J.: Consumer protection technologies: an investigation into the potentials of new digital technologies for consumer policy. J. Consum. Policy 43, 177–191 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-019-09411-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): Consumer Policy Toolkit, vol. (2010). https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264079663-en

  47. Spence, M.: Job market signaling. Q. J. Econ. 87(3), 355–374 (1973). https://doi.org/10.2307/1882010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Stiglitz, J.E.: The theory of “screening,” education, and the distribution of income. Am. Econ. Rev. 65(3), 283–300 (1975)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Sander, M., Heim, N., Kohnle, Y.: Label-Awareness. Wie genau schaut der Konsument hin? Eine Analyse des Label-Bewusstseins von Verbrauchern unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Lebensmittelbereichs. Berichte über Landwirtschaft - Zeitschrift für Agrarpolitik und Landwirtschaft 94(2), 1–20 (2016). https://doi.org/10.12767/buel.v94i2.120

  50. Pollrich, M., Wagner, L.: Gütesiegel. Zu detaillierte Angaben können die Funktionsfähigkeit der Zertifikate schmälern. DIW Wochenbericht 80, 15–18 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Blythe, J., Johnson, S.D.: Rapid evidence assessment on labelling schemes and implications for consumer IoT security. PETRAS IoT Hub, pp. 1–19 (2018). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rapid-evidence-assessment-on-labelling-schemes-for-iot-security

  52. Kelley, P.G., Bresee, J., Cranor, L.F., Reeder, R.W.: A ‘nutrition label’ for privacy. In: Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2009), vol. 4, pp. 1–12. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2009). https://doi.org/10.1145/1572532.1572538

  53. Morgner, P., Mai, C., Koschate-Fischer, N., Freiling, F., Benenson, Z.: Security update labels: establishing economic incentives for security patching of IoT consumer products. In: 2020 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), San Francisco, CA, USA, pp. 429–446 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/sp40000.2020.00021

  54. Emami-Naeini, P., Agarwal, Y., Cranor, L., Hibshi, H.: Ask the experts. What should be on an IoT privacy and security label?. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), San Francisco, CA, USA,, pp. 447–464 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/sp40000.2020.00043

  55. Wertenbroch, K., Skiera, B.: Measuring consumers’ willingness to pay at the point of purchase. J. Mark. Res. 39(2), 228–241 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.39.2.228.19086

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Kalish, S., Nelson, P.: A comparison of ranking, rating and reservation price measurement in conjoint analysis. Mark. Lett. 2, 327–335 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00664219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Simonson, I., Drolet, A.: Anchoring effects on consumers’ willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept. SSRN Electron. J (2003). Stanford GSB Working Paper No. 1787. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.383341

  58. Miller, K.M., Hofstetter, R., Krohmer, H., Zhang, Z.J.: How should consumers’ willingness to pay be measured? An empirical comparison of state-of-the-art approaches. J. Mark. Res. 58(1), 172–184 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.48.1.172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Fettke, P.: State-of-the-Art des State-of-the-Art. Eine Untersuchung der Forschungsmethode „Review“ innerhalb der Wirtschaftsinformatik. WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK 48, 257–266 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11576-006-0057-3

  60. vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Riemer, K., Niehaves, B., Plattfaut, R., Cleven, A.: Standing on the shoulders of giants: challenges and recommendations of literature search in information systems research. Commun. Assoc. Inform. Syst. 37, 206–220 (2015). https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Webster, J., Watson, R.T.: Analyzing the past to prepare for the future. Writing a literature review. MIS Q. 26(2), xiii–xxiii (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  62. Tornatzky, L.G., Fleischer, M.: The Processes of Technological Innovation. Lexington Books, Lexington (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  63. Doolin, B., Ali, E.A.H.: Adoption of mobile technology in the supply chain: an exploratory cross-case analysis. In: Electronic Business: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. IGI Global, pp. 1121–1136 (2008). https://doi.org/10.4018/9781605660561.ch070

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  64. Angeles, R.: Using the technology-organization-environment framework and Zuboff’S concepts for understanding environmental sustainability and RFID: two case studies. Int. J. Econ. Manage. Eng. 7, 2878–2887 (2013). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1088850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Schütz, F., Spierau, B., Rampold, F., Nickerson, R., Trang, S.: Chasing cyber security unicorns: a taxonomy-based analysis of cyber security start-ups’ business models. In: ECIS 2023 Research Papers, Kristiansand, Norway, vol. 262, pp. 1–19 (2023)

    Google Scholar 

  66. McGregor, R., Reaiche, C., Boyle, S., Corral de Zubielqui, G.: Cyberspace and personal cyber insurance: a systematic review. J. Comput. Inform. Syst. 64(1), 157–171 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2023.2185551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Schütz, F., Rampold, F., Kalisch, A., Masuch, K.: Consumer cyber insurance as risk transfer: a coverage analysis. Procedia Comput. Sci. 219, 521–528 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2023.01.320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Lansing, J., Benlian, A., Sunyaev, A.: Unblackboxing’ decision makers’ interpretations of IS certifications in the context of cloud service certifications. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 19(11), 1064–1096 (2018). https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Lins, S., Kromat, T., Löbbers, J., Benlian, A., Sunyaev, A.: Why don’t you join in? A typology of information system certification adopters. Decis. Sci. 53, 452–485 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Volkamer, M., Hauff, H.: Zum Nutzen hoher Zertifizierungsstufen nach den Common Criteria (II). Datenschutz und Datensicherheit 31, 766–768 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11623-007-0250-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Lins, S., Sunyaev, A.: Unblackboxing IT certifications: a theoretical model explaining IT certification effectiveness. In: ICIS 2017 Proceedings, Seoul, Korea (South), vol. 26, pp. 1–13 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  72. Gadatsch, A., Klein, H., Münchhausen, M.: Zertifizierte IT-Sicherheit für Cloud Services. Wirtschaftsinformatik Management 6, 88–97 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1365/s35764-014-0388-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Konrad, W. , Scheer, D.: Grenzen und Möglichkeiten der Verbraucherinformation durch Produktkennzeichnung. In: BfR-Wissenschaft, 05/2020, pp. 1–220 (2010). http://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/238/grenzen_und_moeglichkeiten_der_verbraucherinformation_durch_produktkennzeichnung.pdf

  74. Schumacher, A.: Akkreditierung und Zertifizierung von De-Mail-Diensteanbietern. Datenschutz und Datensicherheit 34, 302–307 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11623-010-0092-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Blomer, J., et al.: Software Zertifizierung. In: Interner Bericht 2008-4, pp. 1–221. https://doi.org/10.5445/IR/1000008070

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Goettingen, Platz der Göttinger Sieben 5, 37073, Göttingen, Germany

    Lucas Pfannenberg, Florian Schütz, Sarah Gronemann, Eylert Spils ad Wilken, Kristin Masuch & Simon Trang

Authors
  1. Lucas Pfannenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Florian Schütz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sarah Gronemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eylert Spils ad Wilken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kristin Masuch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Simon Trang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucas Pfannenberg .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. #6104, Indian School of Business, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

    Abhishek Kathuria

  2. Chinese University of Hong Kong, Sha Tin District, Hong Kong

    Prasanna P. Karhade

  3. University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA

    Kexin Zhao

  4. Indian School of Business, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

    Devina Chaturvedi

Appendix

Appendix

Factors

Definition

References

Increase

consumer trust

Allows for a reconsideration of belief formation related to the trustworthiness of a manufacturer and its products

[20, 27, 49, 54, 68,69,70,71,72,73]

Increase

transparency

Enable the seeking of hidden information about the manufacturer’s quality and its devices or services to their customers

Purchase

behaviour

Persuades consumers to buy from them because the label shows that they are audited by a third party and are therefore trustworthy

Ensure legal conformity

Comply with the legal and regulatory requirements of its devices or services

[27, 68, 69, 71, 72, 74, 75]

Increase

IT security

IT security standards can be assessed and improved

[27, 68, 69, 71,72,73,74,75]

Use as a

marketing tool

Exploit the popularity and credibility of the labels to improve their public image

[23, 27, 49, 69, 70, 73, 75]

Achieve

competitive

advantage

Allow them to differentiate themselves from their competitors to create strategic value or necessary to retain their reputation in the market

Internal

Improvements

During the audit process, a manufacturer may learn from the practices specified in a label, which could trigger internal improvements

[23, 27, 69, 70, 73, 75]

Increase privacy

The manufacturer complies with applicable data protection laws

[27, 68, 69, 72, 74]

Increase

consumer

satisfaction

The purchasing behaviour of consumers is based on their personal needs and desires

[69]

Already certified

Some companies do not seek additional labels because they are already “certified” and therefore see no benefit in adding additional labels to their devices or services

Lack of

experience and knowledge

Lack of experience and knowledge to obtain labels for devices and services

Strong brand

If a company already has a “strong brand” and a good reputation in the market (e.g., Amazon), labels are not necessary as marketing tools

No suitable label

No suitable label, only confirmation of the minimum standards

Limited

management commitment

Due to insufficient training and support or the lack of willingness of staff and management to implement labels

Fear of failure

Some companies do not even try to introduce labels because they fear that they will not be able to comply with the requirements

Side effects

For some labels, consumer ratings are linked to the label (e.g., Trusted Shop), so the companies fear negative consumer reactions could neutralise the effect of the label

Costs

Direct costs are specifically related to the actual process and the costs it causes. The direct costs are related to the expenditures incurred

[27, 30, 69, 70, 75]

Expenditures

Indirect costs arise due to necessary changes in the product or the development process

[69, 75]

Non-perceiving benefits

Usage of limited resources (e.g., financial, human resources) for other opportunities that are more capable ways to increase sales

[27, 69]

Certification’s lack of credibility

Lack of credibility resulting from poor reputation of the independent institution or the low level of awareness of these institutions among consumers

[31, 75]

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Pfannenberg, L., Schütz, F., Gronemann, S., Spils ad Wilken, E., Masuch, K., Trang, S. (2024). Understanding the Corporate Use of IT Security Labels for IoT Products and Services: A Literature Review. In: Kathuria, A., Karhade, P.P., Zhao, K., Chaturvedi, D. (eds) Digital Transformation in the Viral Age. WeB 2022. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 508. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-60003-6_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-60003-6_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-60002-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-60003-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation