Core to developing a general theory of markets, service-dominant (S-D) logic suggests that service is the fundamental basis of exchange (Vargo and Lusch, 2004). In turn, 'Service provision implies the ongoing combination of resources, through integration, and their application' (Vargo and Lusch, 2010: 4); hence the central role of resource integration as the means through which resource integrators (actors) co-create phenomenologically determined value. We identify five themes relevant to gaining a clearer understanding of the role of social and economic factors in resource integration. The themes and the broad relationships between them are conceptualized in Figure 1. Here we identify actors who possess appropriate resources which they are allowed and able to share, co-creating value using collaborative and integrative processes. Their evaluation of each experience occurs within the context of each specific engagement and provides continuous input into future collaborations. The resulting value may impact both the ability of actors to exercise agency and the processes involved in integrating resources. Resource integrators The modified foundational premise (FP9): 'All social and economic actors are resource integrators' (Vargo and Lusch, 2008) recognizes the role of multiple actors in networks. It follows that there is a need to better understand 'the commonalities of the activities of actors that constitute the

The purpose of this article is to identify the antecedents of diminished value in business-to-business exchange. There is only a limited amount of research on value destruction in the context of service-dominant (S-D) logic and, to the best of our knowledge, no dyadic studies. From a business perspective, awareness of factors that have the potential to impede value creation will enable relationship partners to increase mutual value realization. The article examines the accuracy of the term 'value co-destruction' as a blanket description for interaction that results in value reduction, and proposes that, in many instances, 'value diminution' may be more appropriate. The study adopts an exploratory, qualitative approach. One-to-one interviews are conducted with clients and their creative agencies. The results suggest that diminished value outcomes are caused by resource deficiencies and resource misuse by both relational partners, separately and jointly. We propose a model of five higher-order antecedents of value diminution: absence of trust, inadequate communication, power/dependence imbalance, inadequate coordination and inadequate human capital.

Purpose – Value co-creation thinking is reshaping the understanding of markets and marketing and presents a significant opportunity to develop the theory and practice of social marketing. However, whilst value co-creation offers thought-provoking new directions for the field, applying this theory and its core concepts in social marketing is not without significant challenges. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – This is a conceptual paper that seeks to integrate lessons from social marketing practice with the value co-creation discourse from commercial marketing. Drawing upon two projects that have applied principles of collaboration and co-design, the paper provides a critical perspective on the adoption of value co-creation in social marketing. Findings – The collaborative and emancipatory ambitions of co-creation seem highly compatible with social marketing. However, the paper notes some significant conceptual, ethical and practical obstacles in the path of a workable theory of value co-creation for social marketing. Originality/value – While representation of value co-creation and other collaborative approaches is increasing in the social marketing literature, this is the first attempt to provide an integrated and critical review of their compatibility with social marketing at a conceptual, ethical and theoretical level. The analysis shows that value co-creation theory can simultaneously offer opportunities and present obstacles for social marketing.

Purpose -Employees have traditionally played a major role in the customer's service experience. Yet self-service technology (SST) replaces the customer-service employee experience with a customer-technology experience. This paper seeks to use a service-dominant logic lens to gain fresh insight into the consumer experience of SST. In particular, it aims to consider the resources that are integrated when consumers use SSTs, their coproduction role and what might constitute value. Design/methodology/approach -The paper presents findings from 24 semi-structured interviews that focus on the everyday experiences of consumers in using SST. Both genders and all socio-economic categories within all adult age groups from 18 to 65 þ were included. Findings -There is a danger that organizations embrace SST as an economic and efficient mechanism to "co-create" value with consumers when they are merely shifting responsibility for service production. The paper identifies risks when customers become partial employees and concludes that customers should perceive the value they gain from using SST to be at least commensurate with their co-production role.Research limitations/implications -The qualitative study was confined to the consumer perspective. Future research within organizations and among employees who support consumers using SST would extend understanding, as would research within the business-to-business (B2B) context. Quantitative studies could measure the frequency and extent of the phenomena the authors report and assist with market segmentation strategies. Practical implications -The application of service-dominant logic highlights potential risks and managerial challenges as self-service, and consequent value co-creation, relies on the operant resources of customers, who lack the tacit knowledge of employees and are less easy to manage. There is also the need to manage a new employee role: "self-service education, support and recovery". Originality/value -The paper draws attention to managerial challenges for organizations to ensure that SST adoption enhances and does not destroy value. Additionally, it highlights the importance of distinguishing between co-production and co-creation.

No abstract