DIGITAL TRUST GOVERNANCE IN MSME PLATFORM ECOSYSTEMS: AN INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPARENCY, DATA RESPONSIBILITY, AND RESILIENT PARTICIPATION
Keywords:
MSMEs, digital trust, platform governance, data responsibility, business resilienceAbstract
This conceptual and integrative review (within platform governance) develops a framework for digital (from a trust perspective) trust governance in micro, small, (under data responsibility) and medium platform-dependent ventures. It (within platform governance) addresses the problem that MSMEs (from a trust perspective) increasingly depend on digital platforms (under data responsibility) while possessing limited bargaining power, (within platform governance) data expertise, and recovery capacity (from a trust perspective) when platform rules or technologies (under data responsibility) change. Drawing on the resource-based (within platform governance) view, dynamic trust-governance capacities, organizational (from a trust perspective) trust-centered learning, absorptive capacity, social (under data responsibility) capital, and resilience, the paper (within platform governance) explains how transparent data practices, (from a trust perspective) proportionate cybersecurity, platform accountability, explainable (under data responsibility) automated data-governance choices, portable organizational (within platform governance) trust-centered learning can be organized (from a trust perspective) as mutually reinforcing routines. The (under data responsibility) proposed pathway moves from problem (within platform governance) diagnosis and trust-governance capacity mapping (from a trust perspective) to bounded experimentation, assurance evidence (under data responsibility) review, resource reconfiguration, and trust-centered (within platform governance) learning retention. No primary survey, (from a trust perspective) interview, experimental, administrative, or statistical (under data responsibility) data are claimed. The framework (within platform governance) links these mechanisms to customer (from a trust perspective) confidence, continuity, fair participation, data-governance (under data responsibility) choice quality, adaptive resilience and (within platform governance) identifies managerial, institutional, and research (from a trust perspective) implications suitable for resource-constrained platform-dependent ventures.
Downloads
References
Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17-40.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152.
Duchek, S. (2020). Organizational resilience: A capability-based conceptualization. Business Research, 13, 215-246.
Dwivedi, Y. K., et al. (2021). Artificial intelligence: Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 57, 101994.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10-11), 1105-1121.
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M. P., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The circular economy: A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757-768.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266.
Nambisan, S. (2017). Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(6), 1029-1055.
OECD. (2021). The Digital Transformation of SMEs. OECD Publishing.
Sarker, S., Chatterjee, S., Xiao, X., & Elbanna, A. (2019). The sociotechnical axis of cohesion for the IS discipline. MIS Quarterly, 43(3), 695-719.
Spigel, B. (2017). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), 49-72.
Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: A sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759-1769.
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of sustainable enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.
Verhoef, P. C., et al. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122, 889-901.
Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118-144.
West, J., & Bogers, M. (2014). Leveraging external sources of innovation: A review of research on open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), 814-831.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Faisal Matriadi, Lili Adi Wibowo (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
