The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Service logic revisited: who creates value? And who co‐creates?
Abstract
Purpose: In the discussion on service‐dominant logic and its consequences for value creation and marketing the inner meaning of the value‐in‐use notion and the nature of service marketing have not been considered thoroughly. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the meaning of a service logic as a logic for consumption and provision, respectively, and explore the consequences for value creation and marketing. Design/methodology/approach: Being a research‐based paper, the topic is approached by theoretical analysis and conceptual development. Findings: Discussing the differences between value‐in‐exchange and value‐in‐use, the paper concludes that value‐in‐exchange in essence concerns resources used as a value foundation which are aimed at facilitating customers' fulfilment of value‐in‐use. When accepting value‐in‐use as a foundational value creation concept customers are the value creators. Adopting a service logic makes it possible for firms to get involved with their customers' value‐generating processes, and the market offering is expanded to including firm‐customer interactions. In this way, the supplier can become a co‐creator of value with its customers. Drawing on the analysis, ten concluding service logic propositions are put forward. Research limitations/implications: The analysis provides a foundation for further development of a service logic for customers and suppliers, respectively, (“service logic” is preferred over the normally used “service‐dominant logic”) as well for further analysis of the marketing consequences of adopting such a business and marketing logic. Practical implications: Marketing practitioners will find new ways of understanding customers' value creation and of developing marketing strategies with an aim to engage suppliers with their customers' consumption processes in order to enhance customer satisfaction. Originality/value: For a scholarly audience, the paper provides a more truly service‐centric understanding of value creation and of its marketing consequences. For a practitioner audience, it offers service‐based means of further developing marketing practices.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
SERVQUAL: A multiple-Item Scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1988) · Zenodo · doi:10.5281/zenodo.14579729 · Cited by 21,118
Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036 · Cited by 14,779
Developing buyer-seller relationships
Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224298705100202 · Cited by 9,139
Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0069-6 · Cited by 7,824
Managing the co-creation of value
Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0070-0 · Cited by 3,502
Co‐creating unique value with customers
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004) · Strategy & Leadership · doi:10.1108/10878570410699249 · Cited by 2,463
The value concept and relationship marketing
Ravald, A., & Grönroos, C. (1996) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/03090569610106626 · Cited by 2,180
Self-citationA Role Theory Perspective on Dyadic Interactions: The Service Encounter
Solomon, M. R., Surprenant, C., Czepiel, J. A., & Gutman, E. G. (1985) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.2307/1251180 · Cited by 2,004 · cited 1×
“traditions (Solomon et al., 1985) and in relationship marketing (Gummesson, 2002).”
Becker, G. S. (1996) · doi:10.4159/9780674020658 · Cited by 1,379
Service portraits in service research: a critical review
Edvardsson, B., Gustafsson, A., & Roos, I. (2005) · International Journal of Service Industry Management · doi:10.1108/09564230510587177 · Cited by 763
Cited by
What is co-creation? An interactional creation framework and its implications for value creation
Ramaswamy, V., & Ozcan, K. (2018) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.11.027 · Cited by 735
Chen, S.-C., & Lin, C.-P. (2019) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2018.11.025 · Cited by 606
Chandler, J. D., & Lusch, R. F. (2015) · Journal of Service Research · doi:10.1177/1094670514537709 · Cited by 549
Lin, Z., Chen, Y., & Filieri, R. (2017) · Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2017.02.013 · Cited by 401
Customer dominant value formation in service
Heinonen, K., Strandvik, T., & Voima, P. (2013) · European Business Review · doi:10.1108/09555341311302639 · Cited by 353
Metadata
- Authors
- Grönroos, C.
- Venue
- European Business Review
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2008-06-27
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 298-314
- ISSN
- 0955-534X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1972970784
- Cited by
- 1,844
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 160.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Service logic revisited: who creates value? And who co‐creates? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/09555340810886585
- The paper
- Grönroos, C. (2008). Service logic revisited: who creates value? And who co‐creates? European Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1108/09555340810886585
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.