Co-creation of Value and Social Marketing: Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda

Abstract

The objective of this study was to develop a systematic literature review (SLR) on value co-creation and social marketing and propose an agenda for future research. We searched for articles related to the themes of value co-creation and social marketing in Scopus and Web of Science databases. After analysing the articles, we found that an SLR was performed with 19 articles using bibliometric techniques. Three thematic groupings emerged: engagement, cooperation between stakeholders and value co-creation at different levels. In addition, 15 research questions were proposed within these three themes. The findings present a new way of verifying the impacts of social marketing strategies through the value co-creation among the stakeholders involved in the process, benefiting society. Considering that the literature addresses related topics, such as the creation and destruction of value in social marketing, this study sought to develop an SLR on the connection between social marketing and value co-creation.

Keywords

Co-creation literature review social marketing value

Introduction

Some well-known and respected brands around the world have suffered serious negative impacts due to ethical and integrity issues (Kuanr et al., 2022; Porter & Kramer, 2019). This is because society has increasingly demanded ethical behaviour from companies (Laczniak & Murphy, 2019; Lim et al., 2023). As a result, companies are being pressured to act in such a way that they are also concerned about the effects that their actions generate on society (Bal et al., 2023; Miska et al., 2018).

Thus, meeting consumer demands and the ethical behaviour expected by society are ways of generating social value (Eng et al., 2020). As companies do not guarantee their perpetuity only with the creation of economic value, they must act to propose value through the social dimension (Porter & Kramer, 2019). Thus, social marketing becomes important in this context of creating economic value through the social value proposition, as it is a process that applies marketing principles and techniques to propose, communicate and deliver value to consumers, including influencing their behaviour (Domegan et al., 2013; Porter & Kramer, 2019).

Social marketing has been increasingly used as an approach for organizations to promote socially responsible behaviour (Wood, 2016b). On the other hand, value co-creation has shown that it is possible to create initiatives beyond the simple delivery of services and products to consumers (Chandler & Vargo, 2011; Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Thus, value co-creation can be an opportunity to develop the theory and practice of social marketing, favouring all those involved. In this way, understanding how value co-creation and social marketing connect can contribute to the development of organizations and society itself.

The literature on value co-creation has been growing in recent decades (Brey, 2019; Domegan et al., 2013; French et al., 2017; Januzzi et al., 2020; Sousa et al., 2020; Vargo & Lusch, 2004). However, there is a need to consolidate concepts (Bharti et al., 2015; Mujahid et al., 2023). Value co-creation arises from the service-dominant logic and is defined as the joint creation of value between an organization and its customers. This plays a key role in the process of developing products and services (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). It is important to emphasize that an organization does not create value alone; it produces a value proposition. It is from the experience of using the product/service that the consumer co-creates value. This influences their satisfaction and loyalty, thus generating a competitive advantage for the organization (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004).

Marketing studies have increasingly focused on value as a core concept (Brey, 2019; Chandler & Vargo, 2011). This trend has become more evident recently in social marketing, with researchers identifying that value offers a more comprehensive and nuanced framework for understanding people’s motivations for engaging in socially beneficial behaviours (Flaherty et al., 2020; Wood, 2016a). In this sense, there is research in social marketing focusing on the value that citizens can perceive in relation to the use and experience of goods (value in exchange) or services (value in use) in social marketing contexts (Domegan et al., 2013) and value co-creation (Brey, 2019; Butler et al., 2016; Desai, 2009).

Thus, value co-creation thinking is reshaping our understanding of markets and marketing and presents a significant opportunity to develop the theory and practice of social marketing. The value co-creation in social marketing can be a participatory and democratizing force that creates meaning for all rather than simply being a way to create value through co-opting the skills and creativity of individuals. In this way, the theory of value co-creation applied in social marketing is important because people become direct and active participants in the processes of social change (Brey, 2019; Domegan et al., 2013; French et al., 2017).

For example, NESCAFÉ Dolce Gusto, a leading brand in espresso coffee systems in Brazil, has devised a model for disposing of and reusing coffee capsules. When consumers purchase capsules through the brand’s e-commerce platform, they receive a recyclable bag to discard the material. After packing the used capsules, they can simply place them for selective residential collection. Consumers also have the option to take the bag to one of over 40 designated capsule disposal points. Alternatively, they can download an app where a collector can come directly to their home to collect recyclables (Nestlé, 2020). Disney is actively involved in the community and encourages its employees to do the same. When their parks closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Disney redirected its CSR efforts towards local communities. Additionally, they encouraged employees to engage in virtual volunteering activities, showing this co-creation between different stakeholders (Forbes, 2022).

Considering the relationship between social marketing and value co-creation, in the sense of bringing together strategies that promote communication with the delivery of value to the consumer (Porter & Kramer, 2019), it is relevant to investigate how the themes of value co-creation and social marketing are related in the literature. Given the importance of the topic, some studies have focused on presenting literature reviews and suggestions for future research that address the theoretical development of social marketing (Rundle-Thiele et al., 2019) and value co-creation (Galvagno & Dalli, 2014; Saha et al., 2020) separately. Zainuddin and Gordon (2020) developed a review on the creation and destruction of value in social marketing services, also proposing a research agenda. However, the focus of the study was to explore the dimensions of value: functional, economic, emotional, social, ecological and societal.

Therefore, to distinguish itself from the previous literature, the present study sought to answer two research questions: (a) What is the current state of the literature that connects the themes of value co-creation and social marketing? (b) What are the possible paths for future studies on this connection? To answer such questions, we developed a systematic literature review based on articles published in the Web of Science and Scopus databases up to in October 2023, whose analyses were structured in eight stages. This resulted in a final analysis of 19 articles that encompass the themes of value co-creation and social marketing. We used bibliometric techniques to describe the characteristics of the studies, and a systematic review was developed to present the main topics discussed so far to propose suggestions for future research.

This study is theoretically justified by systematizing knowledge about value co-creation connected to social marketing. There are several studies that research this connection. For example, Desai (2009) addressed customer relationship management issues in the context of social marketing. Butler et al. (2016) studied social marketing and its value in behaviour. French et al. (2017) proposed integrating resources between social marketing and for-profit actors as the core for both economic and social development. Santos et al. (2021) investigated the effects of engagement in the context of social marketing with a value proposition for the practice of mindfulness. Therefore, it is important to develop studies that seek to synthesize what has already been studied through thematic maps to consolidate knowledge and offer directions for future research. In addition, the systematic review of the literature on co-creation and social marketing is relevant, as no SLR was found on the connection between the two themes.

From a practical point of view, this study is justified by the various behavioural changes in society. There is a visible change in the new generation’s way of thinking and acting (Laczniak & Murphy, 2019). They are increasingly looking for products and services with a positive social impact. Therefore, organizations need to keep up with these changes and better understand how to address the needs of their consumers and stakeholders.

Methods

The present study aims to develop a SLR on value co-creation and social marketing and propose an agenda for future research. We follow the PRISMA statement, which involves three main steps for SLR: (a) Identification of articles through database searching; (b) Screening after duplicates are removed; and (c) Eligibility determined by checking the full-text articles, assessed using specific criteria to exclude certain articles from the analysis (Moher et al., 2010).

The identification of the articles was made in the Web of Science and Scopus sources in October 2023. The terms used to identify the researched theme were ‘value cocreation’ and ‘social marketing’. When accessing the databases, the search came up with a combination of the terms ‘value cocreat*’ or ‘value co-creat*’ or ‘value co creat*’ the Boolean operator ‘and’ and the term ‘social market*’. We highlight that, based on the principles of macro-social marketing (Kennedy, 2016), we only selected studies that directly stated that they were research on social marketing, not considering studies that used concepts that imply the use of marketing for social purposes. After the selection of keywords, we applied filters seeking only scientific articles from the ‘business’ and ‘management’ categories.

We applied the search in the title, abstract and keywords fields of scientific articles, and care was taken to exclude duplicate articles that were present in both databases (Web of Science and Scopus). Thus, we found 365 articles. In the second stage, three experienced researchers with PhD degree in marketing area and a good background in social marketing and value co-creation studies carried out a detailed and rigorous reading of the titles and abstracts of all files. Thus, it was possible to identify the relevance of the articles and those that were not addressing the theme of value co-creation and social marketing together. In this way, it was possible to discard articles that did not fit the purpose of the research, resulting in a final base composed of 26 articles. In the third stage, these 26 articles were read in full by the three researchers to carry out new filtering. We excluded seven articles, resulting in the final set of 19 articles used in this study. We ensured the choice only of articles that addressed topics targeted by the study, that is, research that connected the theme of value co-creation with social marketing activities. It is important to note that only the articles that had a mutual understanding between the three researchers about not addressing the themes were in fact excluded from the final sample. The steps of the entire process of data collection and analysis are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Process of Selection and Review of Journals and Articles.

Bibliometric Analysis

Bibliometric analysis techniques help to describe the literature that addressed the theme of this study. We found 19 articles, and the oldest publication was from 2005 The most recent ones are from 2021. The articles are from 11 different journals and were written by a total of 57 authors.

The average number of publications per year, shown in Figure 2, indicates a growing trend of discussion on the topic over time. The largest number of publications recorded within the same year occurred in 2021 (four articles). This corroborates the justification for the importance of a study that organizes the literature already developed so far and presents directions for future studies that encompass co-creation and social marketing.

Figure 2.

Number of Publications Per Year.

Within the base of studies used, only two journals have more than one publication, the Journal of Social Marketing (seven publications) and Social Marketing Quarterly (three publications). The Journal of Social Marketing had its first publication on the subject in 2013, with the study by. After that, between 2015 and 2018, five studies were published in this journal involving co-creation and social marketing. Finally, the last publication of this journal within the analysis period occurred in 2021. The most used keywords within the works that make up the base of the study were as follows: social marketing (10 occurrences), value co-creation, collaborations, service-dominant logic, stakeholder theory and well-being (all with two occurrences each).

Systematic Literature Analysis

To identify the themes most explored by the field of study of co-creation and social marketing, we elaborated a thematic map through the analysis of the keywords of the research that make up the database of this study. This map was generated using the RStudio software Bibliometrix package. It is formed based on the density and centrality of the indicators and presents the research themes and the relationships between them.

Through the thematic map, the centrality of the social marketing theme was observed, which was predicted given its importance for the objective of the literature review. Several themes permeate the discussion and make the connection between the theme of social marketing and the value co-creation, such as service dominant logic and stakeholder theory. Within the themes analysed, three stood out as central in the discussion of the studies. They are the following: engagement between parties that co-create value across social marketing activities, cooperation between different stakeholders, and, finally, the different levels of value co-creation (micro, meso and macro) within social marketing. Figure 3 summarizes the key elements and discussion presented in each research stream.

Figure 3.

Key Elements and Discussion Points from the Thematic Groups.

Engagement

Through systematic analysis of the literature, part of the studies that made up this SLR addressed the issue of engagement in their research (Desai, 2009; Rundle-Thiele et al., 2021; Sulkowski et al., 2018). Engagement is defined in different ways in the areas of marketing, psychology and management. Generally, it can be considered a state of involvement, absorption and sustained attention to something (Higgins & Scholer, 2009; Santos et al., 2021). In this way, the greater is the engagement of the participants with the final objective, the greater is the experienced value (Higgins & Scholer, 2009). In an active process of value co-creation, the ability of parties to use their essential resources, such as knowledge, skills, time and effort, depends on the engagement of the beneficiary (Brodie et al., 2011).

Within this theme, the study by Rundle-Thiele et al. (2021) sought to analyse the three-step process, co-create-build-engage (CBE). CBE is a continuous learning process that is applied in organizational routines. In this study, the three stages of the CBE are considered a continuous cycle in which co-creation is seen to ensure that the program is developed by people and not for people. The second stage is construction, where activities are built together among stakeholders. In this way, policies, funding and organizational entities come into agreement to address the needs of interested parties. Finally, the engagement stage is a way to further include the project’s target audience so that they propose new solutions and alternatives. The authors see the engagement stage as a complement to the co-creation stage since, in this case, the clients already had to engage in the process to co-create the activities. Within social marketing activities, the one included in the engagement stage is behaviour change. This is the moment when customers and stakeholders in general can change their perspective on social activities and begin to behave more positively (Rundle-Thiele et al., 2021).

Furthermore, the findings previously discussed in the literature also suggest that engagement makes consumers, volunteers and agents, in general, become more likely to recommend the service delivered (Santos et al., 2021). From a social marketing point of view, this shows that investing in stakeholder engagement can be a possibility for companies to attract more volunteers for social actions and customers who consume the product and service developed.

In line with these findings, the study by Sulkowski et al. (2018) proposes a way to ‘shake up’ the stakeholders who are involved in the co-creation of activities. For these authors, this means generating engagement and alignment with stakeholder networks and catalyzing and supporting new relationships and communication between networks. In this way, this stakeholder engagement, both internal and external, can generate greater commitment and fundamental changes in the core operations of organizations, which in turn can be more beneficial to society and the environment (Sulkowski et al., 2018).

Cooperation Among Stakeholders

Other studies that formed the basis of the SLR addressed the issue of cooperation between stakeholders (French et al., 2017; Herbst, 2019; McHugh et al., 2018). Although engagement and cooperation can be confused and interpreted as one and the same, both are related concepts but not synonyms. While engagement focuses on stakeholders’ involvement and sustained attention (Higgins & Scholer, 2009), cooperation seeks to share activities with a more result-oriented focus, in which stakeholders work together to achieve a specific goal (Bundy et al., 2018). So, while engagement is important for building lasting relationships and engaging stakeholders (Higgins & Scholer, 2009; Santos et al., 2021), cooperation is fundamental for project performance and specific value proposition initiatives (McHugh et al., 2018).

In the context of social marketing, stakeholders play a crucial role in value co-creation, establishing different ways of generating experiences and reciprocal value by focusing on the social aspects of marketing (Terblanche, 2014). French et al. (2017) propose the participation and cooperation between for-profit and non-profit organizations for greater integration of resources in the different levels of value co-creation, that is, at the operational, tactical and strategic levels of organizations, especially in marketing activities. Therefore, systematic stakeholder identification and management throughout the intervention design, planning and implementation process is relevant to effective social marketing planning (McHugh et al., 2018).

Herbst (2019) developed case studies in several third-sector organizations to examine how managers implement commercial and social marketing activities to fulfil sustainable missions. The results show that, through niche marketing strategies, companies attract the target audience to participate in an inclusive way. The study by McHugh et al. (2018) complements this discussion by presenting seven protocols for stakeholder cooperation in the co-creation of social marketing activities and systems. They are as follows: (a) establishing which are the focal systems of value co-creation and which are the adjacent ones; (b) establishing internal working groups to bring together individuals and organizations with diverse expertise and knowledge to coordinate the co-creation process; (c) identifying stakeholders to know which are the individuals and key groups that are affected and affect the problem in focus; (d) classifying stakeholders and analysing them based on their baggage, knowledge and experiences;, (e) identifying the interest and influence of stakeholders; (f) selecting and recruiting stakeholders; and (g) having a stakeholder engagement strategy (McHugh et al., 2018). Therefore, it is possible to see that stakeholder cooperation is developed at a broader level, while engagement is mostly part of a deeper collaboration, appearing only in the last protocol.

Value Co-creation at Different Levels

A group of studies in this SLR discusses the application of value co-creation at its different levels (French et al., 2017; Wood, 2016a). The levels can be divided into three groups: micro (Dietrich et al., 2016), meso (French et al., 2017; Wood, 2016a) and macro (Hoek & Jones, 2011). Thus, we suggest that social marketing ecosystems have these three levels at which actors can interact with each other and co-create value (Fry et al., 2017). The micro level, also called downstream, focuses on interactions between consumers and exchanges between individuals (Chandler & Vargo, 2011; Zainuddin et al., 2016). The meso level, also called midstream, focuses on interactions between organizations, such as nonprofits, community groups and commercial enterprises (French et al., 2017). Finally, the macro level, also called upstream, involves the discussion of relations with governments, the market and public policy makers (Beirão et al., 2017).

Interactions at different levels are a point of attention for studies that investigate the value co-creation in social marketing services (Beirão et al., 2017), bearing in mind that the different levels can also generate different behaviours in these relationships (Domegan et al., 2013). Generally, value co-creation literature has a wider range of discussions at the micro level, that is, in relationships with consumers at an individual level (Dietrich et al., 2016). However, new discussions have arisen at higher levels of interaction, showing the importance of investigating them as well. For example, the study by French et al. (2017) analysed the potential contributions of value co-creation interactions between for-profit companies and social marketing organizations. In this relationship, at the meso level, the authors indicate four dimensions that can be integrated into the co-creation process: cognitive, work, economic and network. From these integrated resources, three results can be achieved: co-learning, co-design and co-production (French et al., 2017).

At the macro level, studies that integrate social marketing and co-creation sought to analyse the behaviours of those responsible for shaping the structural and environmental conditions of society, such as the state, regulators and policymakers (Gordon, 2013; Russell-Bennett et al., 2019). The study by Key and Czaplewski (2017), for example, discusses how to apply social marketing strategy at the macro level of value co-creation (government and regulators) based on integrated marketing communications. According to the authors, steps such as research and target audience determination are necessary, as are channel selection and integration, strategic messaging creation and measurement and control.

Agenda for Future Studies

After analysing and discussing the main research clusters that converge the concepts of value co-creation and social marketing, we propose an agenda for future studies, presenting ways for new research to be developed to advance knowledge about the connection between social marketing and value co-creation (Table 1). The research questions were developed and divided into three themes: engagement, cooperation between stakeholders and value co-creation at different levels of social marketing. Although the research questions in this revision are original contributions, we reference previous articles that discussed the topic and served as inspiration for formulating the study propositions.

Table 1.

Proposed Research Questions.

Thematic	Research Questions	Related Studies
Engagement	What are the best practices for engaging stakeholders in co-creating value in social marketing activities?	Rundle-Thiele et al. (2021), Santos et al. (2021) and Sulkowski et al. (2018)
	What is the influence of value co-creation on consumer engagement in social marketing campaigns?
	What are the factors that influence the engagement of consumers and other stakeholders in value co-creation? How can companies build these factors into their social marketing strategies?
	What is the impact of the engagement of organizations involved in value co-creation on the perceived authenticity of social marketing activities?	Sulkowski et al. (2018)
	How does social media favour engagement between organizations and consumers, leading to joint actions being formulated in favour of society?	Desai (2009)
Cooperation among stakeholders	What is the role of technology in the cooperation between stakeholders for the co-creation of value in social marketing activities?	Dietrich et al. (2016) and
	How can value co-creation be integrated with other social marketing strategies to maximize social impact?	McHugh et al. (2018)
	How can value co-creation be used to improve equity and stakeholder inclusion in social marketing activities?	Dietrich et al. (2016) and McHugh et al. (2018)
	What is the impact of stakeholder cooperation on consumer satisfaction in social marketing activities and campaigns?	Desai (2009)
	How does coopetition between stakeholders privilege co-creation and social value propositions for the end customer?	Herbst (2019)
Value co-creation at different levels of social marketing	How does the organization’s participation at different levels in value co-creation (micro, meso and macro) in social marketing activities affect brand perception?	French et al. (2017), Westberg et al. (2017) and Wood (2016a)
	How can value co-creation at the meso level contribute to the sustainable development of local communities?	French et al. (2017)
	What are the main barriers to developing partnerships between for-profit companies and government and policy makers in generating social contributions?	Key and Czaplewski (2017)
	How have legislators and governments addressed the ethical issues involved in co-creating value in social marketing activities?	Key and Czaplewski (2017)
	How can companies encourage and facilitate the co-creation of value with their intermediary stakeholders (suppliers, distributors, etc.) to promote socially responsible and sustainable behaviour throughout the value chain?	Wood (2016a)

As presented in Table 1, the value co-creation in social marketing is a field of research that still offers many opportunities for future studies. It is possible to explore new perspectives on stakeholder engagement, cooperation and different levels of value co-creation. Thus, as addressed in the suggested research questions, new studies can explore contextual aspects and analyse antecedents and consequences of these phenomena, such as satisfaction, perception of brand value and technological innovation.

Conclusion

This research presents different implications for the study of the connection between the themes of co-creation and social marketing. This was the first study to group studies on value co-creation and social marketing in order to address the main themes that have been addressed in this research. Although the study by Zainuddin and Gordon (2020) did a detailed discussion of the dimensions of value creation and destruction in social marketing, it did not focus on the co-creation and grouping of themes that have been discussed in the literature. Therefore, this research fills this gap in the area of study on the subject, that is, the discussion about the connection between social marketing and co-creation. In addition, this study also proposes possible paths for future research on value co-creation and social marketing, seeking to contribute to the evolution of knowledge and expand the discussion on the themes together.

The study also has practical implications. Faced with the behavioural change of the new generations, who tend to give greater importance to assessing the social impact of companies and brands (Laczniak & Murphy, 2019), it is increasingly necessary for organizations to understand and seek to improve in relation to value co-creation strategies in social marketing. In this way, literature reviews on the subject help to organize and synthesize the discussion about the connection between the two themes (social marketing and co-creation). In addition, when carrying out an analysis of the main themes that are being discussed at the intersection of the themes of value co-creation and social marketing, this can serve as a support for better targeting of for-profit and non-profit companies that want to implement social strategies in their business models.

Despite contributing in different ways to the field of research and organizations in a practical way, this study has some limitations. Although the present study used the two most important and complete databases of the scientific community (Web of Science and Scopus), new literature review studies can perform searches in other journal databases to find other studies that discuss the subject and that were not part of this study. In addition, new studies may also cover other keywords in the search to broaden the discussion that was made. Finally, the present study did not have the objective of analysing the different contexts and service segments that have applied value co-creation strategies in social marketing activities. Thus, it would be interesting to see new studies that perform an SLR to compare the studies by the studied contexts (e.g., scientific evidence from emerging countries compared to evidence from developed countries) or by the types of services and products that were analysed in the surveys. In this way, it would be possible to verify if there are different discussions being carried out depending on these segmentations.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

This research was supported by Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq/Brazil), project 307202/2021-6, by Foundation for Research Support of Espírito Santo (FAPES/Brazil), projects 2022-687ZR (644/2022), 2022-31G9Q (1010/2022) and 2022-1RJWJ (323/2023), by Portuguese Science Foundation (FCT/Portugal) through NECE (Núcleo de Estudos em Ciências Empresariais), project UID/GES/04630/2020, and by IFTS (Instituto Fucape de Tecnologias Sociais), project 2021-2024.

ORCID iDs

Emerson Wagner Mainardes

Amilson de Araujo Durans

References

Bal

A. S.

, Käpylä

, Li

, & Helander

(2023). Collaborative value co-creation from a stakeholder perspective: A literature review. Journal of Creating Value , 9(2), 259–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/23949643231151831

Beirão

, Patrício

, & Fisk

R. P.

(2017). Value cocreation in service ecosystems: Investigating health care at the micro, meso, and macro levels. Journal of Service Management , 28(2), 227–249. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-11-2015-0357

Bharti

, Agrawal

, & Sharma

(2015). Literature review and proposed conceptual framework. International Journal of Market Research , 57(4), 571–604. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJMR-2015-000

Brey

E. T.

(2019). Co-creating value from social media: A framework. Journal of Creating Value , 5(2), 222–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/2394964319869054

Brodie

R. J.

, Hollebeek

L. D.

, Jurić

, & Ilić

(2011). Customer engagement: Conceptual domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research. Journal of Service Research , 14(3), 252–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670511411703

Bundy

, Vogel

R. M.

, & Zachary

M. A.

(2018). Organization–stakeholder fit: A dynamic theory of cooperation, compromise, and conflict between an organization and its stakeholders. Strategic Management Journal , 39(2), 476–501. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2736

Butler

, Gordon

, Roggeveen

, Waitt

, & Cooper

(2016). Social marketing and value in behaviour? Perceived value of using energy efficiently among low income older citizens. Journal of Social Marketing , 6(2), 144–168. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-07-2015-0045

Chandler

J. D.

, & Vargo

S. L.

(2011). Contextualization and value-in-context: How context frames exchange. Marketing Theory , 11(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593110393713

Desai

(2009). Role of relationship management and value co-creation in social marketing. Social Marketing Quarterly , 15(4), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/15245000903304619

10.

Dietrich

, Rundle-Thiele

, Schuster

, & Connor

(2016). Co-designing social marketing programs. Journal of Social Marketing , 6(1), 41–61. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-01-2015-0004

11.

Domegan

, Collins

, Stead

, McHugh

, & Hughes

(2013). Value co-creation in social marketing: Functional or fanciful? Journal of Social Marketing , 3(3), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-03-2013-0020

12.

Eng

T. Y.

, Ozdemir

, Gupta

, & Kanungo

R. P.

(2020). International social entrepreneurship and social value creation in cause-related marketing through personal relationships and accountability. International Marketing Review , 37(5), 945–976. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-12-2018-0360

13.

Flaherty

, Domegan

, Duane

, Brychkov

, & Anand

(2020). Systems social marketing and macro-social marketing: A systematic review. Social Marketing Quarterly , 26(2), 146–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524500420925188

14.

Forbes (2022). Parkgoers and Employees Taken Aback by Disney World’s 180 on Covid-19 Preventive Measures . Forbes Website.

15.

French

, Russell-Bennett

, & Mulcahy

(2017). Travelling alone or travelling far? Meso-level value co-creation by social marketing and for-profit organisations. Journal of Social Marketing , 7(3), 280–296. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-12-2016-0088

16.

Friedman

A. L.

, & Miles

(2002). Developing stakeholder theory. Journal of Management Studies , 39(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00280

17.

Fry

M. L.

, Previte

, & Brennan

(2017). Social change design: Disrupting the benchmark template. Journal of Social Marketing , 7(2), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-10-2016-0064

18.

Galvagno

, & Dalli

(2014). Theory of value co-creation: A systematic literature review. Managing Service Quality , 24(6), 643–683. https://doi.org/10.1108/MSQ-09-2013-0187

19.

Gil Guzman

J. M.

, Hernandez-Fernandez

, & Canales-Ronda

(2021). Bringing social marketing closer to the disability field. Journal of Social Marketing , 11(4), 321–341. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-06-2020-0105

20.

Gordon

(2013). Unlocking the potential of upstream social marketing. European Journal of Marketing , 47(9), 1525–1547. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-09-2011-0523

21.

Haase

(2021). Social value cocreation: A mode of value cocreation. Social Enterprise Journal , 17(4), 493–512. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-04-2020-0023

22.

Herbst

J. M.

(2019). Harnessing sustainable development from niche marketing and coopetition in social enterprises. Business Strategy and Development , 2(3), 152–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.49

23.

Higgins

E. T.

, & Scholer

A. A.

(2009). Engaging the consumer: The science and art of the value creation process. Journal of Consumer Psychology , 19(2), 100–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.02.002

24.

Hoek

, & Jones

S. C.

(2011). Regulation, public health and social marketing: A behaviour change trinity. Journal of Social Marketing , 1(1), 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/20426761111104419

25.

Januzzi

, Bressan

, & Moreira

(2020). Opacity in hedge funds: Does it create value for investors and managers? Brazilian Business Review , 17(6), 640–668. https://doi.org/10.15728/bbr.2020.17.6.3

26.

Kennedy

A. M.

(2016). Macro-social marketing. Journal of Macromarketing , 36(3), 354–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276146715617509

27.

Key

T. M.

, & Czaplewski

A. J.

(2017). Upstream social marketing strategy: An integrated marketing communications approach. Business Horizons , 60(3), 325–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2017.01.006

28.

Kuanr

, Pradhan

, Lyngdoh

, & Lee

M. S. W.

(2022). Why do consumers subvert brands? Investigating the influence of subjective well-being on brand avoidance. Psychology and Marketing , 39(3), 612–633. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21606

29.

Laczniak

G. R.

, & Murphy

P. E.

(2019). The role of normative marketing ethics. Journal of Business Research , 95, 401–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.036

30.

Lim

W. M.

, O’Connor

, Nair

, Soleimani

, & Rasul

(2023). A foundational theory of ethical decision-making: The case of marketing professionals. Journal of Business Research,158 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113579

31.

McHugh

, Domegan

, & Duane

(2018). Protocols for stakeholder participation in social marketing systems. Social Marketing Quarterly , 24(3), 164–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524500418761626

32.

Miska

, Szőcs

, & Schiffinger

(2018). Culture’s effects on corporate sustainability practices: A multi-domain and multi-level view. Journal of World Business , 53(2), 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2017.12.001

33.

Moher

, Liberati

, Tetzlaff

, & Altman

D. G.

PrismaGroup. (2010). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. International Journal of Surgery , 8(5), 336–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007

34.

Mujahid

, Khandai

, & Venkatesh

(2023). A bibliometric analysis of brand value co-creation and consumer engagement. Journal of Creating Value , 9(2), 275–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/23949643231163076

35.

Nestlé; (2020). NESCAFÉ Dolce Gusto amplia modelo de coleta e reciclagem de cápsulas . Nestlé.

36.

Porter

M. E.

, & Kramer

M. R.

(2019). Creating shared value. In Managing sustainable business (pp. 323–346). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1144-7_16

37.

Prahalad

C. K.

, & Ramaswamy

(2004). Co-creating unique value with customers. Strategy & Leadership , 32(3), 4–9. https://doi.org/10.1108/10878570410699249

38.

Rundle-Thiele

, David

, Willmott

, Pang

, Eagle

, & Hay

(2019).Social marketing theory development goals: An agenda to drive change. Journal of Marketing Management , 35(1–2), 160–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2018.1559871

39.

Rundle-Thiele

, Dietrich

, & Carins

(2021). CBE: A framework to guide the application of marketing to behavior change. Social Marketing Quarterly , 27(3), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/15245004211021643

40.

Russell-Bennett

, Fisk

R. P.

, Rosenbaum

M. S.

, & Zainuddin

(2019). Commentary: Transformative service research and social marketing–converging pathways to social change. Journal of Services Marketing , 33(6), 633–642. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-10-2018-0304

41.

Saha

, Mani

, & Goyal

(2020). Emerging trends in the literature of value co-creation: A bibliometric analysis. Benchmarking: An International Journal , 27(3), 981–1002. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-07-2019-0342

42.

Santos

C. P. V.

, Lopes

E. L.

, Dias

J. C.

, de Andrade

A. G. P.

, Matos

C. A.

, & Veiga

R. T.

(2021). From social marketing and service-dominant logic to engagement in mindfulness practice: A field experiment. RAUSP Management Journal , 56(3), 348–366. https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUSP-10-2020-0247

43.

Sousa

, Neto

Kliemann F.

, Andriotti

, & Campagnolo

(2020). Economic assessment of Brazilian public ports: Value-based management. Brazilian Business Review , 17(4), 439–457. https://doi.org/10.15728/bbr.2020.17.4.5

44.

Sulkowski

A. J.

, Edwards

, & Freeman

R. E.

(2018). Shake your stakeholder: Firms leading engagement to cocreate sustainable value. Organization and Environment , 31(3), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026617722129

45.

Terblanche

N. S.

(2014). Some theoretical perspectives of co-creation and co-production of value by customers. Acta Commercii , 14(2). https://doi.org/10.4102/ac.v14i2.237

46.

Thomas

, & Gupta

R. K.

(2005). Marketing theory and practice: Evolving through turbulent times. Global Business Review , 6(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/097215090500600107

47.

Vargo

S. L.

, & Lusch

R. F.

(2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing , 68, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036

48.

Wood

(2016a). Midstream social marketing and the co-creation of public services. Journal of Social Marketing , 6(3), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-05-2015-0025

49.

Wood

(2016b). Social marketing for social change. Social Marketing Quarterly , 22(2), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524500416633429

50.

Zainuddin

, & Gordon

(2020). Value creation and destruction in social marketing services: A review and research agenda. Journal of Services Marketing , 34(3), 347–361. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-01-2019-0046

51.

Zainuddin

, Tam

, & McCosker

(2016). Serving yourself: Value self-creation in health care service. Journal of Services Marketing , 30(6), 586–600. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-02-2016-0075