Digital technology-enabled transformative consumer responsibilisation: a case study

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to explore how a socio-digital platform can facilitate consumer responsibilisation in food consumption to encourage sustained responsible consumption and uncovers its possible impacts on different stakeholders in the agricultural ecosystem. Design/methodology/approach Two-year-long case study of a socio-digital platform that aims to integrate consumers with the farming process; creating value for them and the farmers in India. Findings The process of consumer responsibilisation happens through three mechanisms; construction of a moral-material identity, vicarious self-artisanship and shared responsibilisation. Through these key mechanisms, the socio-digital platform could foster consumer responsibilisation and engender positive societal impacts by promoting both responsible production and consumption. Research limitations/implications This study shows how the construction of moral–material identity could move beyond an either-or choice between moralistic and material identity and allow space for the coexistence of both. This paper highlights how a socio-digital platform can be leveraged to facilitate responsible consumer engagement in an aestheticised farming process. Practical implications This paper aims to guide policymakers to design digitally-enabled human-centred innovation in facilitating consumer engagement with farming and cultivating responsible consumers in achieving sustainable development goals. Social implications This study shows how consumer responsibilisation can actually address market failures by enhancing the value created in the system, reducing wastage and cutting costs wherever possible, which drive better incomes for the farmers. Originality/value Previous studies have discussed heterogeneous motivations for responsible food consumption. However, this research explores the processes through which an individual reconnects to food production and the mechanisms that support this process in the long run.

Digital social innovation: An overview and research framework

“…Therefore, these organisations need to exercise embedded agency (Garud et al, 2007;Qureshi et al, 2016). Their agency results, in part, from their ability to bring external knowledge and resources (Hota et al, 2019;Parthiban et al, 2021;Shalini et al, 2021), their ICT expertise (Krauss, 2018;Leong et al, 2015;Qureshi et al, 2021a) and their reflexivity (Claus et al, 2021;Krauss, 2018;Qureshi, Riaz, & Ruebottom, 2017;van Wijk et al, 2020). In contrast, as shown in Figure 1, their social embeddedness helps them be aware of local formal and informal institutions (Bernardi et al, 2019;Masiero & Prakash, 2020;, leverage local knowledge and resources (Escobedo et al, 2021;Hota et al, 2019;Karanasios & Slavova, 2019) and navigate exploitative social structures (Iivari et al, 2018;Qureshi et al, 2018;.…”

“…One of the most high-profile DSI examples, M-Pesa mobile money, showcases the importance of public-private partnerships. Emerging research in this domain has suggested that DSIrs seeking to scale their impact need to account for the peculiarities of social intermediation and market linkages (Hota et al, 2019;Kistruck et al, 2013;Shalini et al, 2021), the open and emergent nature of innovations for the base-of-the-pyramid population (Madon & Schoemaker, 2021;Parthiban et al, 2021), and the need for intensive learning and strategical "drift" to achieve adaptive innovation (Foster & Heeks, 2013). (Rosca et al, 2017); grassroots innovation (Seyfang & Smith, 2007;Smith et al, 2016;Zorina & Karanasios, 2021); resources constraints (Bhatt et al, 2019;Hota et al, 2019) Literature on scaling has identified, broadly, six approaches to scaling social impact (André & Pache, 2016;Bhatt et al, 2021; that are relevant to DSI: scaling by diversification, scaling up, scaling across, scaling deep, ecosystem approach and scaling by bridging complementary institutional voids (BCIVs; see Table 5).…”

“…

Digital social innovation (DSI) involves the use of digital technologies in the development and implementation of innovative products, services, processes and business models that seek to improve the well-being and agency of socially disadvantaged groups or address social problems related to marginality, inequality and social exclusion (Qureshi, Pan, & Zheng, 2017;Shalini et al, 2021). Often, DSI is less about technological innovation and more about social innovation-a process of finding innovative, effective and sustainable solutions to pressing societal challenges, such as those listed in sustainable development goals (SDGs).

…”

“…Technology-savvy companies have built platforms or utilities exploiting internet-based infrastructure to increase the pace of innovation. These digital innovations led to a paradigm shift in how technology is leveraged to generate value (Parthiban et al, 2021), as exemplified by the sharing economy (Qureshi et al, 2021a), collaborative consumption (Shalini et al, 2021), gig work and crowdsourcing (Deng et al, 2016;Liu et al, 2020). However, societal outcomes of these digital innovations are at best mixed, as highlighted in privacy and security concerns (Newell & Marabelli, 2015), surveillance (Zuboff, 2019), oppressive and unethical outcomes of algorithms (Kane et al, 2021), and discrimination and exploitation in sharing economy platforms (Attri & Bapuji, 2021;Van Doorn, 2017).…”

“…As we learned from combating the COVID-19 pandemic, there are research opportunities for IS researchers who aspire to tackle SDGs . In particular, the SDGs represent significant new opportunities and challenges for organisations that would like to engage base-of-the-pyramid 1 producers, artisans and employees (Madon & Sharanappa, 2013;Parthiban et al, 2021;Qureshi et al, 2018;Shalini et al, 2021). The investment needed to achieve UN's SDGs is estimated to be up to US$3 trillion a year for 15 years (Goldsmith, 2015).…”