Theoretical Explanations for Firms' Information Privacy Behaviors

Abstract

Information privacy is an important information management issue that is increasingly challenging managers and policy makers. While many studies have investigated information privacy as an individual, sectoral, or national level phenomenon, there is a gap in our understanding of organizational approaches to developing and implementing policies and programs to manage customer information privacy. Information systems research lacks theory to explain firm level information privacy behaviors. This article argues for an expanded repertoire of theories to be applied to investigating information privacy, especially the role that the pursuit of competitive necessity versus competitive advantage plays in explaining organizational level behavior. The authors outline how the Institutional Approach (IA) and the Resource-Based View (RBV) of the firm offer compelling theoretical explanations for firms' behaviors and should be applied to privacy research within the information systems area.

A Design Theory for Transparency of Information Privacy Practices

“…Second, provider attention to privacy has been conceptualized as a spectrum of feasible strategies resulting from a trade-off between the provider's desires to access consumer information and compliance with data protection laws or consumers' privacy expectations (eg, Culnan 2019, Feigenbaum et al 2002, Gal-Or et al 2018, Gerlach et al 2019, Greenaway et al 2015, Greenaway and Chan 2005, Wall et al 2016. Regarding TIPP, the spectrum of feasible strategies boils down to a dichotomous decision.…”

“…Societal pressures can also manifest in the form of increasing consumer awareness/demand (Bamberger andMulligan 2011, Smith 1993) and motivate privacy providers to offer useful transparency artifacts in order to differentiate themselves from competitors (Gerlach et al 2019, Greenaway et al 2015. Likewise, societal pressures can manifest in form of competitive pressures if close competitors gain competitive advantages by establishing TIPP (Greenaway and Chan 2005). Privacy providers may further be motivated to leverage transparency artifacts as an information resource to reduce uncertainty about consumers' privacy expectations (Greenaway and Chan 2005) and learn about privacy issues to which data protection laws offer few insights because they cannot account for consumers' evolving and contextdependent privacy expectations (Bamberger andMulligan 2011, Mulligan et al 2016).…”

“…Likewise, societal pressures can manifest in form of competitive pressures if close competitors gain competitive advantages by establishing TIPP (Greenaway and Chan 2005). Privacy providers may further be motivated to leverage transparency artifacts as an information resource to reduce uncertainty about consumers' privacy expectations (Greenaway and Chan 2005) and learn about privacy issues to which data protection laws offer few insights because they cannot account for consumers' evolving and contextdependent privacy expectations (Bamberger andMulligan 2011, Mulligan et al 2016).…”

An Investigation of Attitudes of Students Towards Privacy on Facebook

“…Many discussions of privacy emphasize it as a positive in the sense that privacy "protects behavior which is either morally neutral or valued by society" (Warren & Laslett, 1977, p. 44). Privacy studies have been defined by Chan and Greenaway (2005) at three levels: individual, sectoral/national and organizational. The sectoral/ national level of research addresses on policy-makers and regulators as protectors of users' privacy, and on the benefits and threats of local, state and federal regulation include industry standards and best practices.…”

A Review of Information Privacy and Its Importance to Consumers and Organizations

“…How a firm reacts to the challenge depends on many factors, including the following: its goals; its culture; how it implements its strategies; the degree to which it is affected by its social networks; whether it is proactive or reactive in its response to external pressures; how much information it collects; whether it collects information to spur internal innovation or better understand customers; its perception about how much its customers value privacy; how and to what extent it invests in information technology; and how it puts its privacy activities in place and the outcomes it desires from these activities (Chan & Greenaway, 2005;Greenaway & Chan, 2013;Parks & Wigand, 2014). However, fundamentally a firm can see privacy as a threat to be dealt with or as an opportunity to be taken.…”