PurposeThis article explores the impact of crises, such as the coronavirus pandemic, on service industries, service customers, and the service research community. It contextualizes pandemics in the realm of disasters and crises, and how they influence actors' well-being across the different levels of the service ecosystem. The paper introduces a resources–challenges equilibrium (RCE) framework across system levels to facilitate service ecosystem well-being and outlines a research agenda for service scholars.Design/methodology/approachLiterature on disasters, crises, service and well-being is synthesized to embed the COVID-19 pandemic in these bodies of work. The material is then distilled to introduce the novel RCE framework for service ecosystems, and points of departure for researchers are developed.FindingsA service ecosystems view of well-being co-creation entails a dynamic interplay of actors' challenges faced and resource pools available at the different system levels.Research limitations/implicationsService scholars are called to action to conduct timely and relevant research on pandemics and other crises, that affect service industry, service customers, and society at large. This conceptual paper focuses on service industries and service research and therefore excludes other industries and research domains.Practical implicationsManagers of service businesses as well as heads of governmental agencies and policy makers require an understanding of the interdependence of the different system levels and the challenges faced versus the resources available to each individual actor as well as to communities and organizations.Social implicationsDisasters can change the social as well as the service-related fabric of society and industry. New behaviors have to be learned and new processes put in place for society to maintain well-being and for service industry's survival.Originality/valueThis paper fuses the coronavirus pandemic with service and well-being research, introduces a resources-challenges equilibrium framework for service ecosystem well-being and outlines a research agenda.

PurposePeople are responsible for their wellbeing, yet whether they take ownership of their own or even others' wellbeing might vary from actor to actor. Such psychological ownership (PO) influences the dynamics of how wellbeing is co-created, particularly amongst actors, and ultimately determines actors' subjective wellbeing. The paper's research objective pertains to explicating the concept of the co-creation of wellbeing and conceptualizing the dynamics inherent to the co-creation of wellbeing with consideration of the influences of all involved actors from a PO perspective.Design/methodology/approachTo provide a new conceptualization and framework for the dynamics of wellbeing co-creation, this research synthesizes wellbeing, PO and value co-creation literature. Four healthcare cases serve to illustrate the effects of engaged actors' PO on the co-creation of wellbeing.FindingsThe derived conceptual framework of dynamic co-creation of wellbeing suggests four main propositions: (1) the focal actor's wellbeing state is the intangible target of the focal actor's and other engaged actors' PO, transformed throughout the process of wellbeing co-creation, (2) PO over the focal actor's wellbeing state is subject to the three interrelated routes of exercising control, investing in the target, and intimately knowing the target, which determine the instigation of wellbeing co-creation, (3) the level of PO over the focal actor's wellbeing state can vary, influence and be influenced by the extent of wellbeing co-creation, (4) the co-creation of wellbeing, evoked by PO, is founded on resource integration, which influences the resources–challenges equilibrium of focal actor and of all other engaged actors, affecting individual subjective wellbeing.Originality/valueThis article provides a novel conceptual framework that can shed new light on the co-creation of wellbeing in service research. Through the introduction of PO the transformation of lives and wellbeing can be better understood.

This paper takes a closer look at the emerging topic of transformative service research (TSR) and compares its facets with the more established concept of the service-dominant logic (SDL). The paper thus contributes to both theory development and practical application. This work highlights the conceptual parallels in the two approaches, for example, their holistic approach, their systems thinking, addressing entities or actors within such system(s), inclusion of the wider environment, and their focus on the co-creative and interactive nature of well-being generation and value co-creation. The paper also reveals some differences, for example TSR's focus on eudaimonic and hedonic well-being outcomes vs. SDL's value co-creation. The paper concludes that both perspectives have merits, but could benefit from being used integratively. By comparing the areas of theory focus, practical application, value co-creation and co-destruction, intentionality, well-being and value concepts, and TSR and SDL's "logic", the paper provides suggestions for future research.

This research is part of a project titled "Involving the 'hard-to-reach' in making services reachable" and is solely funded by the New Zealand Government's Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment's "Health and Society Research Fund" during the period October 2013 to September 2016.

The global refugee crisis is a complex humanitarian problem. Service researchers can assist in solving this crisis because refugees are immersed in complex human service systems. Drawing on marketing, sociology, transformative service, and consumer research literature, this study develops a Transformative Refugee Service Experience Framework to enable researchers, service actors, and public policy makers to navigate the challenges faced throughout a refugee’s service journey. The primary dimensions of this framework encompass the spectrum from hostile to hospitable refugee service systems and the resulting suffering or well-being in refugees’ experiences. The authors conceptualize this at three refugee service journey phases (entry, transition, and exit) and at three refugee service system levels (macro, meso, and micro) of analysis. The framework is supported by brief examples from a range of service-related refugee contexts as well as a Web Appendix with additional cases. Moreover, the authors derive a comprehensive research agenda from the framework, with detailed research questions for public policy and (service) marketing researchers. Managerial directions are provided to increase awareness of refugee service problems; stimulate productive interactions; and improve collaboration among public and nonprofit organizations, private service providers, and refugees. Finally, this work provides a vision for creating hospitable refugee service systems.