Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards an Ethical and Trustworthy Social Commerce Community for Brand Value Co-creation: A trust-Commitment Perspective

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Firms have been increasingly using social commerce platforms to engage with customers and support their brand value co-creation. While social commerce is now bringing a variety of benefits to business, it has also challenged marketing ethics surrounding online consumer privacy. Drawing on the trust-commitment theory, we develop a model that aims to create an ethical and trustworthy social commerce community for brand value co-creation by examining the impacts of online consumer privacy concerns (namely privacy risk and privacy control) and social interaction constructs (namely consumer-peer interaction and collaborative norms) on consumers’ psychological reactions. Using an empirical study, we find that: (1) privacy risk, privacy control, and collaborative norms significantly influence consumers’ trust; (2) consumer-peer interaction and collaborative norms are positively related to relationship commitment; and (3) relationship commitment and trust positively affect consumers’ brand value co-creation in the context of social commerce. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://www.socialbakers.com/statistics/facebook/pages/total/brands, accessed In Feb. 2019.

  2. Firms could also engage in deceptive practices on social commerce platforms to manipulate consumers’ perceptions and influence the process of brand value co-creation. We thank one reviewer for pointing this issue out.

  3. Only participants who visited firms’ brand pages regularly were kept for our analysis.

  4. Following Hershatter and Epstein (2010), we selected those who were born after 1980 as younger generations (i.e., digital natives). The recent literature has shown that these digital natives may become differently in digital environment (Liu et al. . 2018).

References

  • Anderson, M. (2018). Facebook privacy scandal explained. https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/facebook-privacy-scandal-explained-1.3874533.

  • Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (1990). A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships. The Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 42–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aral, S., Dellarocas, C., & Godes, D. (2013). Introduction to the special issue—social media and business transformation: A framework for research. Information Systems Research, 24(1), 3–13.  

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, L., & Free, C. (2006). Marketing dataveillance and digital privacy: Using theories of justice to understand consumers’ online privacy concerns. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(2), 107–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhuian, S. N. (2016). Extending Consumer Online Brand Trust Research in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Region. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 28(3), 201–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock, G.-W., Kankanhalli, A., & Sharma, S. (2006). Are norms enough? The role of collaborative norms in promoting organizational knowledge seeking. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(4), 357–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bostrom, R. P., & Heinen, J. S. (1977). MIS problems and failures: a socio-technical perspective, part II: The application of socio-technical theory. MIS Quarterly, 1(4), 11–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. A. (2014). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caudill, E. M., & Murphy, P. E. (2000). Consumer online privacy: Legal and ethical issues. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19(1), 7–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chai, S., Das, S., & Rao, H. R. (2011). Factors affecting bloggers’ knowledge sharing: An investigation across gender. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(3), 309–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J., & Shen, X. L. (2015). Consumers' decisions in social commerce context: An empirical investigation. Decision Support Systems, 79, 55–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (1998). Between trust and control: Developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances. Academy of management review, 23(3), 491–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinev, T., & Hart, P. (2003). Privacy concerns and internet use–a model of trade-off factors. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Proceedings.

  • Dinev, T., & Hart, P. (2006). An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Information Systems Research, 17(1), 61–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2011). Social role theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories in social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 58-476). London: Sage.

  • Echeverri, P., & Skålén, P. (2011). Co-creation and co-destruction: A practice-theory based study of interactive value formation. Marketing Theory, 11(3), 351–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of Management Review, 9(1), 47–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foxman, E. R., & Kilcoyne, P. (1993). Information technology, marketing practice, and consumer privacy: Ethical issues. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 12, 106–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gefen, D. (2000). E-commerce: The role of familiarity and trust. Omega, 28(6), 725–737.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-Graph: Tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16(1), 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goo, J., & Huang, C. D. (2008). Facilitating relational governance through service level agreements in IT outsourcing: An application of the commitment–trust theory. Decision Support Systems, 46(1), 216–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajli, N., & Lin, X. (2016). Exploring the security of information sharing on social networking sites: The role of perceived control of information. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(1), 111–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath, R. L., & Bryant, J. (2013). Human communication theory and research: Concepts, contexts, and challenges. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hershatter, A., & Epstein, M. (2010). Millennials and the world of work: An organization and management perspective. Journal of Business Psychology, 25(2), 211–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousands Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, I. B., & Cha, H. S. (2013). The mediating role of consumer trust in an online merchant in predicting purchase intention. International Journal of Information Management, 33(6), 927–939.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hrebiniak, L. G. (1974). Effects of job level and participation on employee attitudes and perceptions of influence. Academy of Management Journal, 17(4), 649–662.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hui, K. L., Teo, H. H., & Lee, S. Y. T. (2007). The value of privacy assurance: an exploratory field experiment. Mis Quarterly, 31(1), 19–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 195–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C., & Wei, K. -K. (2005). Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 113–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keil, M., Tan, B. C., Wei, K.-K., Saarinen, T., Tuunainen, V., & Wassenaar, A. (2000). A cross-cultural study on escalation of commitment behavior in software projects. MIS Quarterly, 24, 299–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelman, H. C. (2017). Processes of opinion change. In R. M. Eagly (Ed.), Attitude change (pp. 205–233). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krasnova, H., Spiekermann, S., Koroleva, K., & Hildebrand, T. (2010). Online social networks: Why we disclose. Journal of Information Technology, 25(2), 109–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang, T.-P., Ho, Y.-T., Li, Y.-W., & Turban, E. (2011). What drives social commerce: The role of social support and relationship quality. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 16(2), 69–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, X., Featherman, M., & Sarker, S. (2017a). Understanding factors affecting users’ social networking site continuance: a gender difference perspective. Information & Management, 54(3), 383–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, X., Li, Y., & Wang, X. (2017b). Social commerce research: Definition, research themes and the trends. International Journal of Information Management, 37(3), 190–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Z., & Wang, X. (2018). How to regulate individuals’ privacy boundaries on social network sites: A cross-cultural comparison. Information & Management, 55(8), 1005–1023.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Z., Wang, X., & Liu, J. (2018). How digital natives make their self-disclosure decisions: a cross-cultural comparison. Information Technology & People. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-10-2017-0339

  • Liu, Z., Wang, X., Min, Q., & Li, W. (2019). The effect of role conflict on self-disclosure in social network sites: An integrated perspective of boundary regulation and dual process model. Information Systems Journal, 29(2), 279–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu, Y., Zhao, L., & Wang, B. J. (2010). From virtual community members to C2C e-commerce buyers: Trust in virtual communities and its effect on consumers’ purchase intention. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(4), 346–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Agarwal, J. (2004). Internet users’ information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model. Information Systems Research, 15(4), 336–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance (Vol. 14). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J. E., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1994). Groups interacting with technology: Ideas, evidence, issues, and an agenda. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 334–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merz, M. A., Zarantonello, L., & Grappi, S. (2018). How valuable are your customers in the brand value co-creation process? The development of a Customer Co-Creation Value (CCCV) scale. Journal of Business Research, 82, 79–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metzger, M. J. (2007). Communication privacy management in electronic commerce. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), 335–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. The Journal of Marketing, 58, 20–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7(3), 101–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, A., Storbacka, K., Frow, P., & Knox, S. (2009). Co-creating brands: Diagnosing and designing the relationship experience. Journal of Business Research, 62(3), 379–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petronio, S. (2012). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. Albany: Suny Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ringle, C., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0 (beta).” vol. Internet: http://www.smartpls.de.

  • Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. J. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well being. Journal of Personality, 65(3), 529–565.

    Google Scholar 

  • See-To, E. W., & Ho, K. K. (2014). Value co-creation and purchase intention in social network sites: The role of electronic Word-of-Mouth and trust–A theoretical analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 182–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shamim, A., Ghazali, Z., & Albinsson, P. A. (2016). An integrated model of corporate brand experience and customer value co-creation behaviour. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 44(2), 139–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi, S., Chow, W. S. J., & Systems, D. (2015). Trust development and transfer in social commerce: Prior experience as moderator. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 115(7), 1182–1203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. (2018). 90 Amazing Facebook Page Statistics and Facts. https://expandedramblings.com/index.php/facebook-page-statistics. Accessed on May 21, 2018.

  • Solove, D. J. J. S. D. L. R. (2007). I’ve got nothing to hide and other misunderstandings of privacy. Faculty Scholarship, 44, 745.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spekman, R. E. (1988). Strategic supplier selection: understanding long-term buyer relationships. Business Horizons, 31(4), 75–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajvidi, M., Richard, M. -O., Wang, Y., & Hajli, N. (2018). Brand co-creation through social commerce information sharing: The role of social media. Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.06.008.

  • Tajvidi, M., Wang, Y., Hajli, N., & Love, P. E. (2017). Brand value Co-creation in social commerce: The role of interactivity, social support, and relationship quality. Computers in Human Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turow, J. (2003). Americans and Online Privacy. The System Is Broken. A Report from the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved October, 7, 2016.

  • Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, X., & Li, Y. (2016). Users’ satisfaction with social network sites: A self-determination perspective. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 56(1), 48–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C., & Zhang, P. J. C. (2012). The evolution of social commerce: The people, management, technology, and information dimensions. Communications of the Association for information Systems, 31(5), 105–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xie, C., Bagozzi, R. P., & Troye, S. V. (2008). Trying to prosume: Toward a theory of consumers as co-creators of value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 109–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, H., Dinev, T., Smith, J., & Hart, P. (2011). Information privacy concerns: Linking individual perceptions with institutional privacy assurances. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 12(12), 798.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaglia, M. E. (2013). Brand communities embedded in social networks. Journal of Business Research, 66(2), 216–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., Jiang, Y., Shabbir, R., & Du, M. J. I. M. M. (2015). Building industrial brand equity by leveraging firm capabilities and co-creating value with customers. Industrial Marketing Managemen, 51, 47–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, L., Zhang, P., Zimmermann, H.-D., & JECR Applications. (2013). Social commerce research: An integrated view. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 12(2), 61–68.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors are grateful to the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions that helped develop this paper.

Funding

This study was funded by Murdoch University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Science, Health, Engineering and Education, Murdoch University, Perth, WA, 6150, Australia

    Xuequn Wang

  2. Newcastle University, 102 Middlesex Street, London, E1 7EZ, UK

    Mina Tajvidi

  3. Department of Computer Information and Decision Management, Paul and Virginia Engler College of Business, West Texas A&M University, 2501 4th Ave, Canyon, TX, 79016, USA

    Xiaolin Lin

  4. School of Management, Swansea University, Swansea, SA1 8EN, Wales, UK

    Nick Hajli

Authors
  1. Xuequn Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mina Tajvidi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiaolin Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nick Hajli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaolin Lin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Xuequn Wang has received research grants from Murdoch University. Mina Tajvidi declares that she has no conflict of interest. Xiaolin Lin declares that he has no conflict of interest. Nick Hajli declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A: Sample demographic Information

Category

Sample (N = 400)

Ethnicity

 

 White

82.40%

 Black or African American

9.29%

 American Indian or Alaska Native

.73%

 Asian

3.67%

 Hispanic

3.42%

 Other

.49%

Education

 

 Less than high school

1.22%

 High school graduate

20.05%

 Some college

27.38%

 2 year degree

12.96%

 4 year degree

30.07%

 Professional degree

7.82%

 Doctorate

.49%

Age

 

 18–19

.24%

 20–29

10.27%

 30–39

15.40%

 40–49

18.83%

 50–59

24.94%

 60 or older

30.32%

Gender (% of female)

63.57%

Years visiting Facebook

5.87 (SD 2.89)

Years visiting Facebook Brand Page

2.81 (SD 2.20)

Appendix B: Measurement

Privacy risk

PR1

It would be risky to post information

PR2

There would be high potential for privacy loss associated with posting information

PR3

My information would be inappropriately used by other peers

PR4

Posting information would involve many unexpected problems

Privacy control

PC1

I believe I can control the information posted

PC2

I believe I have control over who can get access to my information posted

PC3

I think I have control over what information is released

PC4

I believe I have control over how my information is used by other peers

Consumer–peer interaction

CPI1

I maintain close social relationships with other users

CPI2

I spend a lot of time interacting with other users

CPI3

I know other users on a personal level

CPI4

I have frequent communication with other users

Collaborative norms

CN1

There is a norm of cooperation

CN2

There is a norm of collaboration

CN3

There is a norm of teamwork

CN4

There is a willingness to value and respond to diversity

CN5

There is a norm of openness to conflicting views

CN6

There is a norm of tolerance of mistakes

CN7

Information sharing is important

CN8

Information sharing is strongly encouraged

Trust

TIF1

The performance of Facebook Brand Page always meets my expectations

TIF2

Facebook brand page can be counted as good features

TIF3

Facebook brand page is reliable

Relationship commitment

RC1

I have an emotional attachment to my favorite Facebook brand page

RC2

I feel a sense of belonging to my favorite Facebook brand page

RC3

I feel a strong connection to my favorite Facebook brand page

RC4

I feel a part of the group in my favorite Facebook brand page

Brand value Co-creation

BVC1

I often share corporate posts (such as products or news) from my favorite Facebook brand page on my own Facebook page

BVC2

I often recommend my favorite Facebook brand page to my Facebook contacts

BVC3

I frequently upload product-related videos, audios, pictures, or images from my favorite Facebook brand page on my own Facebook page

BVC4

I often join events organized through my favorite Facebook brand page

BVC5

I often share my own shopping experiences on my favorite Facebook brand page

Appendix C: Item descriptive statistics

Construct

Item

Mean

SD

Loading

Privacy risk

PR1

3.74

1.62

0.93

PR2

3.91

1.68

0.95

PR3

3.70

1.59

0.92

PR4

3.65

1.69

0.95

Privacy control

PC1

4.55

1.67

0.90

PC2

4.59

1.60

0.93

PC3

4.52

1.57

0.95

PC4

4.40

1.66

0.93

Consumer–peer interaction

CPI1

4.24

1.83

0.95

CPI2

4.00

1.82

0.94

CPI3

4.06

1.98

0.93

CPI4

4.14

1.90

0.97

Collaborative norms

CN1

5.19

1.17

0.88

CN2

5.13

1.19

0.90

CN3

5.01

1.33

0.87

CN4

5.20

1.22

0.89

CN5

4.92

1.28

0.80

CN6

4.83

1.27

0.77

CN7

5.36

1.27

0.86

CN8

5.44

1.22

0.82

Trust

TIF1

5.08

1.25

0.94

TIF2

5.20

1.19

0.95

TIF3

5.16

1.21

0.94

Relationship commitment

RC1

4.04

1.84

0.93

RC2

4.42

1.72

0.97

RC3

4.34

1.72

0.97

RC4

4.55

1.67

0.93

Brand value Co-creation

BVC1

3.99

1.90

0.88

BVC2

3.99

1.88

0.91

BVC3

3.52

1.94

0.84

BVC4

3.41

1.88

0.85

BVC5

3.85

1.96

0.89

Appendix D: Demographic differences of model testing

 

Male (144)

Female (256)

Diff. Sig.?

Young (181)

Old (219)

Diff. Sig.?

H1a: privacy risk → trust

− 0.03

− 0.12*

sd

− 0.07

− 0.09*

sd

H1b: privacy control → trust

0.31***

0.25***

>***

0.22**

0.28***

<***

H2a: collaborative norms → trust

0.57***

0.46***

>***

0.59***

0.45***

>***

H2b: collaborative norms → relationship commitment

0.36***

0.28***

>***

0.26***

0.33***

<***

H3a: Consumer–Peer interaction → relationship commitment

0.46***

0.49***

<***

0.53***

0.47***

>***

H3b: trust → relationship commitment

0.06

0.17**

sd

0.14*

0.11*

>***

H4a: trust → brand value co-creation

0.26***

0.13*

>***

0.18*

0.14*

>***

H4b: relationship commitment → brand value co-creation

0.58***

0.54***

>***

0.55***

0.55***

ns

  1. ns no significant difference; sd structurally different (one path is significant and the other is not); Diff. Sig. different significantly?
  2. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, X., Tajvidi, M., Lin, X. et al. Towards an Ethical and Trustworthy Social Commerce Community for Brand Value Co-creation: A trust-Commitment Perspective. J Bus Ethics 167, 137–152 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04182-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04182-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation