Collaboration and Trust Building Among Public and Private Actors

  • Luis F. Luna-ReyesEmail author
  • Deborah Lines Andersen
  • David F. Andersen
  • Holly Jarman
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 26)


Using data from the I-Choose project, a study of coffee produced in Mexico and distributed and sold in Canada and the United States, this chapter analyzes three distinct traceability systems in relation to the ways in which each attempts to build and sustain trust. In each case, supply chain actors are working together to capture information about how and where their products are produced, aiming to provide this information to consumers. The ultimate goal in each system is the same: to demonstrate the quality of their product and earn a price premium. We find that institutional, calculative, and relational trust are used in different ways in each of the three systems, with distinct variations over time. Extrapolating from these cases, we find that providing consumers with sustainable supply chain information evolves dynamically over time with calculative trust less permanent and relational trust more permanent. Institutional trust appears to be the best way to communicate with consumers in international marketplaces.


Trust Provenance User confidence Information assurance Social computing Customer-oriented systems 


  1. Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albersmeier, F., Schulze, H., Jahn, G., & Spiller, A. (2009). The reliability of third-party certification in the food chain: From checklists to risk-oriented auditing. Food Control, 20(10), 927–935.
  3. Arora, R. (2006). Product positioning based on search, experience and credence attributes using conjoint analysis. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 15(5), 285–292.
  4. Backhouse, J., Hsu, C., Tseng, J. C., & Baptista, J. (2005). A question of trust. Communications of the ACM, 48(9), 87–91.
  5. Ba, S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2002). Evidence of the effect of trust building technology in electronic markets: Price premiums and buyer behavior. MIS Quarterly, 26(3), 243.
  6. Burkert, M., Ivens, B. S., & Shan, J. (2012). Governance mechanisms in domestic and international buyer–supplier relationships: An empirical study. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(3), 544–556.
  7. Delhey, J., & Newton, K. (2005). Predicting cross-national levels of social trust: Global pattern or Nordic exceptionalism? European Sociological Review, 21(4), 311–327.
  8. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.Google Scholar
  9. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.
  10. Gefen, D., Pavlou, P., Benbasat, I., McKnight, H., & Stewart, K. (2006). ICIS panel summary: Should institutional trust matter in information systems research? Communications of the AIS, 17(Article 9), 205–222.Google Scholar
  11. Jahn, G., Schramm, M., & Spiller, A. (2005). The reliability of certification: Quality labels as a consumer policy tool. Journal of Consumer Policy, 28(1), 53–73.
  12. Luna-Reyes, L. F., Zhang, J., Roy, R., Andersen, D. F., Whitmore, A., & Andersen, D. L. (2013). Information strategies to support full information product pricing: The role of trust. Information Polity, 18(1), 75–91.Google Scholar
  13. Nall, J. (2010). CDC 2.0: Using social media to improve public health. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference on Public Administration Online: Challenges and Opportunities, Digital Government Society of North America. Puebla, Mexico: ACM.Google Scholar
  14. Pan, Y. (2011). Eliminating the cyber “lemons” problem with the e-reputation in e-commerce market: Theoretical model and practice. International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations, 8(3/4), 182.
  15. Pavlou, P. A., & Dimoka, A. (2006). The nature and role of feedback text comments in online marketplaces: Implications for trust building, price premiums, and seller differentiation. Information Systems Research, 17(4), 392–414.
  16. Pavlou, P. A., Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2007). Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in online exchange relationships: A principal- agent perspective. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 105–136.Google Scholar
  17. Powell, W. W. (1996). Trust-based forms of governance. In Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 51–67). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Retrieved from
  18. Román, S. (2010). Relational consequences of perceived deception in online shopping: The moderating roles of type of product, consumer’s attitude toward the internet and consumer’s demographics. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(3), 373–391.
  19. Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.
  20. Saini, A. (2010). Purchasing ethics and inter-organizational buyer–supplier relational determinants: A conceptual framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(3), 439–455.
  21. Saparito, P. A., Chen, C. C., & Sapienza, H. J. (2004). The role of relational trust in bank – Small firm relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 400–410.
  22. Shapiro, D. L., Sheppard, B. H., & Cheraskin, L. (1992). Business on a handshake. Negotiation Journal, 8(4), 365–377.
  23. Sheppard, B. H., & Sherman, D. M. (1998). The grammars of trust: A model and general implications. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 422–437.
  24. Smith, S., & Barrientos, S. (2005). Fair trade and ethical trade: Are there moves towards convergence? Sustainable Development, 13(3), 190–198.
  25. Sriram, M. S. (2005). Information asymmetry and trust: A framework for studying microfinance in India. The Journal for Decision Makers, 30(4), 77–85.Google Scholar
  26. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Thornton, L. M., Esper, T. L., & Morris, M. L. (2013). Exploring the impact of supply chain counterproductive work behaviors on supply chain relationships. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 43(9), 786–804.
  28. Viitaharju, L., & Lähdesmäki, M. (2012). Antecedents of trust in asymmetrical business relationships: Differing perceptions between food producers and retailers. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 30(5), 567–587.
  29. White-Cooper, S., Dawkins, N. U., & Anderson, L. A. (2009). Community-institutional partnerships: Understanding trust among partners. Health Education & Behavior, 36(2), 334–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Zornoza, A., Orengo, V., & Penarroja, V. (2009). Relational capital in virtual teams: The role played by trust. Social Science Information, 48(2), 257–281.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luis F. Luna-Reyes
    • 1
    Email author
  • Deborah Lines Andersen
    • 2
  • David F. Andersen
    • 3
  • Holly Jarman
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of InformaticsUniversity at AlbanyAlbanyUSA
  2. 2.Department of Information StudiesUniversity at AlbanyAlbanyUSA
  3. 3.Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyAlbanyUSA
  4. 4.Department of Health Management and PolicySchool of Public Health, University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations