Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Collaboration and Trust Building Among Public and Private Actors

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Private Data and Public Value

Part of the book series: Public Administration and Information Technology ((PAIT,volume 26))

  • 1013 Accesses

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This research was supported by CONACYT grant no. 133670.

  2. 2.

    Agromor is an organization that works closely with the Mexican National Institute for Agricultural Research (INIFAP) in the development of improved coffee plants. Nestlé distributes the plants to coffee producers as a component of the Nescafé plan.

  3. 3.

    The Tec of Monterrey is a higher education institution that collaborates with Nestlé in training programs for producers.

  4. 4.

    The name “data infrastructure building block” derives from National Science Foundation Data Infrastructure Building Block program which aims to “foster cross-community infrastructure development that solves common problems, while building blocks of data infrastructure that can support and provide data solutions to a broader range of scientific disciplines while reducing duplicative efforts.” (http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=504776)

  5. 5.

    http://www.goodguide.com

  6. 6.

    http://www.consumerreports.org

References

  • Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2009.01.010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arora, R. (2006). Product positioning based on search, experience and credence attributes using conjoint analysis. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 15(5), 285–292. http://doi.org/10.1108/10610420610685695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Backhouse, J., Hsu, C., Tseng, J. C., & Baptista, J. (2005). A question of trust. Communications of the ACM, 48(9), 87–91. http://doi.org/10.1145/1081992.1081994.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. http://doi.org/10.2307/4132332.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.06.019.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delhey, J., & Newton, K. (2005). Predicting cross-national levels of social trust: Global pattern or Nordic exceptionalism? European Sociological Review, 21(4), 311–327. http://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jci022.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32. http://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.24160888.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-004-7298-6.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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. http://doi.org/10.1504/IJNVO.2011.039993.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. http://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1060.0106.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/trust-in-organizations/SAGE.xml

  • 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. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0365-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. http://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1998.926617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saini, A. (2010). Purchasing ethics and inter-organizational buyer–supplier relational determinants: A conceptual framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(3), 439–455. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0432-2.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. http://doi.org/10.2307/20159589.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, D. L., Sheppard, B. H., & Cheraskin, L. (1992). Business on a handshake. Negotiation Journal, 8(4), 365–377. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.1992.tb00679.x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard, B. H., & Sherman, D. M. (1998). The grammars of trust: A model and general implications. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 422–437. http://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1998.926619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S., & Barrientos, S. (2005). Fair trade and ethical trade: Are there moves towards convergence? Sustainable Development, 13(3), 190–198. http://doi.org/10.1002/sd.277.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. http://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-09-2012-0298.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. http://doi.org/10.1108/02634501211251061.

    Google Scholar 

  • White-Cooper, S., Dawkins, N. U., & Anderson, L. A. (2009). Community-institutional partnerships: Understanding trust among partners. Health Education & Behavior, 36(2), 334–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zornoza, A., Orengo, V., & Penarroja, V. (2009). Relational capital in virtual teams: The role played by trust. Social Science Information, 48(2), 257–281. http://doi.org/10.1177/0539018409102414.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Informatics, University at Albany, Albany, NY, USA

    Luis F. Luna-Reyes

  2. Department of Information Studies, University at Albany, Albany, NY, USA

    Deborah Lines Andersen

  3. Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy, University at Albany, Albany, NY, USA

    David F. Andersen

  4. Department of Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Holly Jarman

Authors
  1. Luis F. Luna-Reyes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Deborah Lines Andersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David F. Andersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Holly Jarman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luis F. Luna-Reyes .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, ANN ARBOR, Michigan, USA

    Holly Jarman

  2. Department of Informatics, University at Albany, Albany, New York, USA

    Luis F. Luna-Reyes

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Luna-Reyes, L.F., Andersen, D.L., Andersen, D.F., Jarman, H. (2016). Collaboration and Trust Building Among Public and Private Actors. In: Jarman, H., Luna-Reyes, L. (eds) Private Data and Public Value. Public Administration and Information Technology, vol 26. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27823-0_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation