Let's talk about risks: a pillar framework for social media risk management in memory institutions

Abstract

PurposeWhile memory institutions' use of social media has proliferated, research and scholarly literature on risks, resulting from social media use, memory institutions' social media risk-aware culture and, in particular, social media risk management remains scant. This study addresses this knowledge gap and identifies aspects of social media risk management from other sectors that could inform the cultural heritage sector.Design/methodology/approachThis research involves a review of the scholarly and professional literature that contribute to social media risk management discourses. These include those that discuss the different categories of social media risks, social media policies, risk-aware culture and social media risk management strategies and processes. Works discussing social media risk management models and frameworks are also included in the review. Based on the insights gained from these reviews, a pillar framework to guide social media risk management in memory institutions is developed.FindingsThe proposed framework outlines the baseline components relevant for the cultural heritage sector and underlines the evolving and continual nature of these components. Elements particularly important to memory institutions are highlighted. Notably, that social risks as a risk category must be recognised. Also noted is that the conventional apolitical stance still taken by many memory institutions need to be reviewed. The importance of memory institutions to be not overly risk-averse to the point of failing to take advantage of the affordances of social media platforms, thereby stifling potential innovations around services and engagement with their users/audience is discussed.Originality/valueThis research offers an extensive review of the social media risk management literature, both scholarly and professional across different domains. The ensuing insights inform the development of a pillar framework to guide social media risk management in memory institutions. The framework outlines a baseline mapping of the governance, processes and systems components. The expectation is that this framework could be extended to account for contextual and situational requirements at more granular levels to reflect the nuances, variances and complexities that exist among different types of memory institutions and to account for varying attributes, mandates and priorities in the cultural heritage sector.

Developing a decision model for risks associated with using social media in operation and supply chain management

“…Social media risk is a term used to denote potential value loss and/or negative effects resulting from the use of social media (Liew et al. , 2022).…”

“…Social media risk is a term used to denote potential value loss and/or negative effects resulting from the use of social media (Liew et al, 2022). Various authors in the literature have focused on different types of social media risks.…”

“…Social media assists to constitute supportive relationships as well as enhances efficient communication and information sharing in the supply chain (Naeem, 2020). Interestingly, it can be stated that social media may cause a variety of serious risks and threats for the organization (He, 2012;Picazo-Vela et al, 2012;Liew, 2022). Past theoretical and empirical evidence indicated this dilemma (e.g.…”

“…However, these studies are predominantly concerned with business risks resulting from using social media (e.g. Williams and Hausman, 2017;Liew, 2022), some of them are interested in the public sector (e.g. Picazo-Vela et al, 2012), some of them are concerned with the marketing side (e.g.…”

“…Several studies have highlighted the bright side of social media. However, recently an increasing number of incidents signified that a dark side of social media exists as well (Baccarella et al, 2018;Liew, 2022). Therefore, researchers' attention has shifted towards the "negative aspect of social media in regards to organizations", because of inherent risks that may exist in digital activities (Mohamad et al, 2018) and lead work-life conflicts (Tang et al, 2020).…”