This is a self-archived – parallel published version of this article in the publication archive of the University of Vaasa. It might differ from the original. Digital trust – asystematic literature review Author(s): Pietrzak, Piotr; Takala, Josu Title: Digital trust – asystematic literature review Year: 2021 Version: Published version Copyright ©2021 Wydawnictwo Naukowe Akademii WSB. Forum Scientiae Oeconomia is published under a Creative Commons BY-SA license. Please cite the original version: Pietrzak, P. & Takala, J. (2021). Digital trust – asystematic literature review. Forum Scientiae Oeconomia 9(3), 59-71. https://doi.org/10.23762/FSO_VOL9_NO3_4 Forum Scientiae Oeconomia • Volume 9 (2021) • No. 3 Digital trust– asystematic literature review Piotr Pietrzak, Josu Takala ABSTRACT Digital technologies, such as social networks, smartphones, block chainsorbig data, have become an indispensable part of our lives in recent years. They have a significant impact on our daily lives, even in crucial areas such as health, finance, and education. Recognising this, organisations presently face a difficult challenge – to create con- sumer digital trust. It should be noted that most studies have focused on the establishment of digital trust without identifying and consider- ing the basic definition of “digital trust”. The purpose of this article is to provide insights regarding the state of the art of digital trust, and to suggest areas for future research. Using a systematic literature review, this paper provides an overview of the literature. The most important conclusionto be derived from this study is that there is no single gen- erally accepted definition of digital trust. Although the early research on “digital trust” can be traced back to 1996, it was only after 2016 that the number of papers on this topic increased substantially. KEY WORDS Trust, digital trust, systematic literature review. DOI: 10.23762/FSO_VOL9_NO3_4 Piotr Pietrzak1 e-mail: piotr_pietrzak1@sggw.edu.pl Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Poland Josu Takala e-mail: josu.takala@uwasa.fi University of Vaasa, Finland 1Corresponding author Introduction Paper received: 6 May 2021 • Paper revised: 13 July • Paper accepted: 19 July 2021 Over the years, trust has been ana- lysedalongside many different disciplines and fields of study including economics, philosophy, technology and sociology (AL- Dwairi et al., 2009). Within management research in particular, there have also been numerous academic studies that have in- vestigated trust (e.g. Young and Wilkinson, 1989; Smith and Barclay, 1997; Geyskens et al., 1998). It is worthmentioningthat there is no single, official definition of trust (Walter and Smallbone, 2006). In terms of business behaviour, trust is founded on a belief in the likelihood that other agents would behave in a predictable manner (Gambetta, 1998). While there are many different interpreta- tions of the concept of trust (e.g. Fukuyama, 1995; Mayer et al., 1995; Mollering, 2006), they all focus on the following components that need to be present for trust to occur (Wang and Emurian, 2005; Cook et al., 2009; Bachmann and Inkpen, 2001; Dietz, 2011): (1) two actors must exist: the trustor and the trustee; (2) vulnerability must be displayed (trust exists only in a hazardous or uncertain situation); (3) trust leads to actions, mostly risk-taking behaviours; (4) trust is a highly subjective issue (trust is influenced by nu- merous subjective individual and environ- mental circumstances, and as such is de- pendent on the context of the situation). Some recent studies have examined the concept of trust in the context of consumer marketing, that is, in the relationships be- tween organisations and their end custom- ers. This is especially true of research that looks at aspects such assatisfaction, brand image, and customer loyalty that influence customer purchasing behaviour (Valdani and Busacca, 1992; Berry, 1995; Fletcher and Peters, 1997; Miyamoto and Rexha, 2004). Forum Scientiae Oeconomia • Volume 9 (2021) • No. 360 Studies of inter-organisational relation- ships, and hence the field of business-to- business marketing, have made the most significant contributions to the conception and assessment of the trust construct (Blois 1999).Sales management (in the industry and service sector) and channel manage- ment (where the purpose is to understand how trust develops between the seller and the buyer) are two fields of business-to- business marketing that have fuelled the study of trust (Raimondo, 2000). In the era of the digital economy, con- tact between customers and sellers takes place via the Internet. Therefore, the con- cept of digital trust is increasingly used in the literature. But it should be noted that the digital space, in addition to its many benefits, has also introduced divisions, barriers, and exclusions (Parente and Prescott, 1994; Zeira, 1998;Pohjola, 2003; Okoli et al., 2010). The Internet is seen by customers as a world of chaos - the degree of uncertainty of economic transactions is higher than in traditional settings (Grabner- Kräuter and Kaluscha, 2008). A buyer, as a trustor, is put in a risky situ- ation when she or he utilises the Internet to convey her or his needs to an e-vendor and enters confidential information about herself or himself. She or he selects a pay- ment method and expects the website to be a secure platform for the transaction and the seller to fulfil the purchase request honestly and competently (Bauman and Bachmann, 2017). Buyers frequently hesi- tate to deal with e-vendors, according to McKnight et al. (2002), due to ambiguity regarding the behaviour of e-vendors or the perceived risk of hackers acquiring their personal data. Therefore, e-vendors need to create higher trustworthiness in the minds of customers who exhibit high levels of uncertaintyavoidance in orderto overcome saidhazards. Of course, one must also bear in mind the impact of computers and digital archi- tecture on purchasing behaviour and the formation of trust. Fogg (2003) focused on the aspects of interaction with technology intended to change people’s attitudes, be- haviours, or both, coining the term “captol- ogy” to describe “computers as persuasive technologies”. Computer systems provide a number of advantages over more “con- ventional” persuaders. Computers, unlike broadcast or print media, allow for inter- activity: they may alter their actions in re- sponse to user inputs, wants, and condi- tions. Unlike human persuaders, comput- ers can be mercilessly persistent, provide anonymity to other users, and cope with vast volumes of data. It is worth noting that the prominence of conceptual and illustrative case studies demonstrates the lack of maturity of the concept of digital trust. Future study, ac- cording to Reis et al. (2018), should focus more on establishing the theoretical foun- dation for this issue.For this reason, our study makes several contributions. Firstly, it contributes to the literature on digital trust (articles and conference proceed- ings) by demonstrating a comprehensive knowledge of its underpinnings in light of recent advances. Secondly, the article may be a first step in terms of research in the field of digital trust that uses a systematic literature review (in management articles,a systematic literature review is still rarely in- dicated as a research method). The remainder of the article is struc- tured as follows. The next section provides a brief description of the methodological approach (an explanation of how thesys- tematic literature review was undertaken) and is followed by the research findings (both quantitative and qualitative). This is followed by a discussion (explaining what the contribution of the article to manage- ment science is, andpointing out what the Digital trust– asystematic literature review 61 limitations of the research carried out are). The article ends with some concluding remarks. 1. Methodology “A review of prior, relevant literature is an essential feature of any academic project. An effective review creates a firm foundation for advancing knowledge. It facilitates theory development, closes areas where a plethora of research ex- ists, and uncovers areas where research is needed” (Webster and Watson, 2002, xiii). Frank and Hatak (2014) refer to a literature review as a “knowledge map”. Of course, there are several types of litera- ture reviews. This paper follows a system- atic literature review method. Systematic review, defined by Petrosino et al. (2001, 20) as “the most reliable and comprehen- sive statement about what works”, entails detecting, synthesising, and evaluating all available evidence, both quantita- tive and qualitative, in order to generate a solid, empirically derived answer to a specific research question(s) (here: “What is digital trust?”, “What are its character- istics?”). “Originally used in the medical sciences in the 1970s to examine the ef- fectiveness of health-care interventions and, more broadly, to support the practice of evidence-based medicine” (Mallet et al., 2012, 445), it has now spread to a wide range of disciplines including“advertising, agriculture, archaeology, astronomy, biol- ogy, chemistry, criminology, ecology, edu- cation, entomology, law, manufacturing, parapsychology, psychology, public policy, and zoology” (Petticrew, 2001, 99). Systematic reviews differ from tradi- tional narrative reviews by “adopting a replicable, scientific and transparent process” (Tranfield et al., 2003, 209). Ta- ble 1 shows the characteristics of narrative and systematic reviews. Table 1. Characteristics of narrative and systematic reviews Criterion Systematic review Narrative Research questions “Strictly formulated” “Broadly formulated” Methodology “Clearly defined” “Not or insufficiently described” Search strategy “Clearly defined” “Not described” Selection of the studies “Clearly defined” “Not described” Ranking of the studies “By levels of evidence” “Not performer” Analysis of the studies “Clearly described” “Not described” Interpretation of the results “Objective” “Subjective” Source: Impellizzeri and Bizzini, 2012. The key characteristics of a systematic review are (Liberati et al., 2009): • “a clearly stated set of objectives with an explicit, reproducible methodol- ogy; • a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies that would meet the eligibility criteria; • an assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies, for example through the assessment of risk of bias; • and systematic presentation, and synthesis, of the characteristics and findings of the included studies”. Despite all the advantages of this meth- od, its use has not been overly prevalent in business research, albeitit is increasing (Coombes and Nicholson, 2013; Snyder et al., 2016; Witell et al., 2016; Reis et al., 2018). To reduce potential bias, two different approaches were adopted in this article (Reis et al., 2018, 412): Forum Scientiae Oeconomia • Volume 9 (2021) • No. 362 • “a qualitative approach based on a bibliometric analysis; • a qualitative approach centred on a content analysis of the literature”. It is important to remember that these two approaches should be viewed as be- ing “complementary” in “acknowledging the structure of the field of study” (Acedo and Casillas, 2005, 623). Table 2 summa- rises the research methodology. The data search was conducted on 14 April 2021, and the selected peer-reviewed database was the Institute for Scientific Information – Web of Science (ISI). We started with the inclusion criteria by using the term “digital trust” in the topic (title, ab- stract or keywords). The “topic” category was chosen above the “text” category to limit the search results to publications that focused solely on investigating trust rather than other areas of the digital economy or e-commerce that might only indirectly im- pact online customer trust. Table 2. Approaches adopted in the study Quantitative Approach Qualitative Approach Description • A bibliometric analysis of the selectedjournal papers and conference proceedings. • Content analysis of the selected journal papers and conference proceedings. Content • Articles and proceedings distributedbetween 1996 and 2020; • Most frequently cited journal papers and proceedings; • Research area of journal papers and proceed- ings. • The concept of digital trust (e.g. definitions, features). Source: Own elaboration based on Reis et al., 2018. As in many studies in whicha systematic literature reviewwas used, “the search for articles was conducted regardless of the time limitations” (Reis et al., 2018, 413) in this paper as well, but it was limited to conference proceedings and journal pa- pers. To avoid any misunderstanding, the selected documents had to be written only in English. The exclusion process re- sulted in a total of 34 journal papers and proceedings from the ISI database. Based on thesearticles,we will attemptto answer the followingresearch questions: “What is digital trust?” and “What are its character- istics?” 2. Research findings 2.1. Quantitative approach Although the early research on “digital trust” can be traced back to 1996, it was only after 2016 that the number of papers on this topic increased substantially. In 2020, 82% of the total number of publi- cations are journal articles and 18% are conference proceedings (Figure 1). The countries that most contributed to these publications are (1) the United States of America, and (2) Russia, with 13% and 10% of the total respectively. Table 3 presents the most frequently cited papers. The article cited most often (25 times) was a publication prepared by Bapna et al. (2017) entitled “Trust and the Strength of Ties in Online Social Networks: An Exploratory Field Experiment”, which appeared in 2017 in “Management Infor- mation Systems (MIS) Quarterly”. The topics of the publications included in Table 4 are varied. They focus on tools (such asADAM – “Autonomic Distributed Authorisation Middleware”) that recognise and assess trust-warranting properties of other entities (Seleznyov et al., 2004). Several publications also outline the evolving features of the Internet of Things (IoT) and define key security and privacy requirements from the consumer’s stand- point (e.g. Khan et al., 2016; Shepherd et Digital trust– asystematic literature review 63 al., 2016). After all, some of them explain “how social ties are linked to an economic measure of trust” (Bapna et al., 2017, 115). Thus, considering the research area, the highest number of publications concerned computer sciences (14 publications) and engineering (ninepublications), as shown in Table 4. Figure 1. Distributionof publications Source: Own elaboration. Table 3. Distributionof publications per author Author(s) Journal title Year of publica- tion Times cited Bapna et al. “Management Information Systems (MIS) Quarterly” 2017 25 Shepherd et al. “2016 IEEE TRUSTCOM/BIGDATASE/ISPA (Proceedings Pa- per)” 2016 16 Khan et al. “Advanced Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering (Proceedings Paper)” 2016 11 Wong “Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association” 1996 11 Akram and Ko “2014 IEEE 13th International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications (Proceed- ings Paper)” 2014 3 Selke et al. “Proceedings of the 8th European Conference On E-Govern- ment (Proceedings Paper)” 2008 3 Seleznyov et al. “BT Technology Journal” 2004 3 Source: Own elaboration. Table 4. Research area of publications Research areas Number of publications % of 34 Computer Sciences 14 41.176 Engineering 9 26.471 Business Economics 5 14.706 Education / Educational Research 4 11.765 Information Science / Library Science 4 11.765 Telecommunications 4 11.765 Communications 2 5.882 Public Administration 2 5.882 Social Sciences / Other Topics 2 5.882 Area Studies 1 2.941 Government Law 1 2.941 Forum Scientiae Oeconomia • Volume 9 (2021) • No. 364 Health Care Sciences Services 1 2.941 Mathematics 1 2.941 Medical Informatics 1 2.941 Science / Technology / Other Topics 1 2.941 Social Issues 1 2.941 Transportation 1 2.941 Source: Own elaboration. Furthermore, it is difficult to identify the journal containingthe largest number of publications on“digital trust”. In recent years, an increased number of articles have been published as conference pro- ceedings. The majority of them were con- ceptual in nature. This is a clear sign of the lack of maturity of this phenomenon. As a result, future study should concentrate on establishing the theoretical foundations of the field, based on existing ideas and theo- ries or the development ofnew ones. There- fore, we believe it is important to provide a definition of digital trust, point out the dif- ferences between digital and non-digital trust, and indicate how digital trust affects organisational culture. 2.2. Qualitative approach In most cases, trust is employed in hu- man society to deal with high-risk situa- tions in which the people involved in the in- teraction have little or no information about each other (Seleznyov et al., 2004).Trust is frequently misunderstood and used inter- changeably with terms such ascoopera- tion, faith, competence, dependence, and credibility (Aljazzaf et al., 2010). Because trust is so important, it has been examined extensively in a variety of social science areas (Golembiewski and McConkie, 1975; Kramer and Tyler, 1996), including man- agement and economics (Kacperska and Łukasiewicz, 2020). Many authors (e.g. Bailey et al., 1998; Akram and Ko, 2014; Mattila and Seppälä, 2016; Marcial and Launer,2018) attempted to define and discuss the exact notion of digital trust or cyber trust (see Table 5). This argument emphasises the need to define“digital trust”. Therefore, the authors of this article hope that the systematic litera- ture review will make a valuable contribution to the development of management theory. For the purposes of this paper, digital trust is assumed to be the measure of con- fidence which workers, consumers/buyers, partners and other stakeholders havein the ability of an organisation to protect data and the privacy of individuals. For this reason,organisations should focus on reli- ability, credibility, and security. Table 5. Definitionsof digital trust Author(s)/Institution(s) (year of publication) Definition Bailey et al. (1998) “Trust plays a critical role when a user assesses the believability of online information content or when selecting an exchange site to purchase a product from (...). When a design team develops an informational or exchange site, they are responsible for en- suring that a user perceives that site as trustworthy.” Akram and Ko (2014) “(...) a trust based either on past experience or evidence that an entity has behaved and/or will behave in accordance with the self-stated behaviour.” Accenture (2015) “(...)the confidence placed in an organisation to collect, store, and use the digital infor- mation of others in a manner that benefits and protects those to whom the information pertains.” Mattila and Seppälä (2016) “Digital trust stems from a combination of different factors (...):security, identifiability, and traceability. Quite often, however, the presence of these features can be too difficult for an individual to evaluate - and especially so in a digital environment.” Digital trust– asystematic literature review 65 Marcial and Launer (2018) “It refers to the level of confidence in people, processes, and technology to build a secure digital world.” Source: Own elaboration. Digital trust shares similar character- istics to those of non-digital/offline trust (Jarvenpaa and Rao, 2003; Taddeo, 2009), but there are some important distinctions that are unique in an online environment (Wang and Emurian, 2005). These distinc- tions can be used as a starting point for learning more about the nature of trust in an exceedingly digital context. The follow- ing are the features of digital trust: • a trustee is an e-commerce web site, or more specifically, the merchant whomthe web site represents, and a trustor is a consumer who browses an e-commerce Internet site. Marcella (1999) indicated that sometimes the technology itself is an object of trust; • consumer trust in online merchants leads to two distinct behaviours: (1) making an online purchase from the merchant, presumably including the provision of credit card and personal information, and (2) ”window-shop- ping” at the merchant’s site (Dietz, 2011); • the consumer is vulnerable to certain violations of trust in online commercial transactions: money and privacy are both at risk (Friedman et al., 2000); • digital trust, like non-digital trust, is inherently a subjective matter based on individual characteristics and situ- ational conditions (Grabner-Kräuter, 2002). Every individual’s level of trust required to conduct online transac- tions is different. In the available literature on the subject, very often the authors not only indicate the characteristics of digital trust, but also at- tempt to answer the question of how dig- ital trust drives (organisational) cultural- change. As Uzelac (2008, 10) noted, “the claim that technology impacts different aspects of our culture is over-simplified and too de- terministic, but it is not completely wrong”. People are aware of the changes that have occurred in modern societies as a result of the introduction of ICT (information and communication technology) into our lives, much like electricity did previously (Uzelac, 2008). Changes have taken place both with- in and outside of organisations,especially when it comes to organisational culture. Digital trust has become one of the core values of modern organisations. Organisa- tional cultures that promote it are referred to in the literature as “cyber-security” (CS) (e.g. van Niekerk and von Solms, 2010;Reid and van Niekerk, 2014; Gcaza and von Sol- ms, 2017) or “digital” (Uzelac, 2008). It is not possible to understand digital culture unless one can recognise the het- erogeneous elements of which it is com- posed (Gere, 2002). Rab (2015) draws attention to the following characteristics: copiability (digital information is straight- forward to copy, and once connected to a network, the possibilities for this are in- finite), digital literacy (using the new com- munication media to evaluate and sort out information), insecurity (the information so- ciety idea and the concept of risk society are similar to each other), instantaneous- ness (in the digital environment, we send information and read emails instantly), interconnectivity (constant access and contact), multitasking (several tasks can be managed at the same time), and per- manence (everything we do in our digital world leaves a trace). A more detailed typology of digital cul- ture was presented by Abraham et al. (2019), whodiscovered four organisational Forum Scientiae Oeconomia • Volume 9 (2021) • No. 366 cultures on a digital trust continuum, rang- ing from ignorance and neglect todefiance, compliance, and integrity. The culture of ignorance and neglect is a tragic case (Sauser, 2008): organisations fail to comply with clear requirements for building digital trust (for example, data use notification under data privacy laws and violation of notification standards). Lack of motivation, lack of awareness, inaccurate beliefs about behaviours or hazards, risky behaviour, and the inadequate use of tech- nology are among the five factors high- lighted by Metalidou et al. (2014) as having a significant impact on how people behave in terms of information security. In turn, companies with a culture of defi- ance resist crucial aspects of building dig- ital trust (for example, refusing to obey data privacy and violating the laws on activity notification). Organisations with a culture of compliance may disagree with legal or regulatory features that are crucial to dig- ital trust, but they nonetheless comply with the laws or standards. Companies with a culture of integrity commit to achieving the minimum requirements mandated by regu- lation, and demonstrate ethical behaviour, such as consumer education on credit security or granting financial compensa- tion to customers harmed, for example, by unauthorised private data use. It should be noted that companies transitioning away from a culture of ignorance and neglect toward one of honesty should begin by examining the underlying group practices and the organisation’s patterns of knowl- edge exchange. Those behaviours and habits often point to the root cause of fail- ures indigital trust (Abraham et al., 2019). Government “fiscal measures and meth- ods for data monetisation would be required to incentivise digital trust in ways that drive entire social and corporate ecosystems to- ward a culture of honesty”(Abraham et al., 2019, 4). For example, through the “Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act of 2009”, the government fined hospitals for not meeting baseline metrics in digitising medical data, which impelled organisational cultures of compliance. 3. Discussion From a theoretical standpoint, we looked into the phenomenon of “digital trust”. Our findings show that this idea is underappre- ciated in the scholarly literature. The term “digital trust” appears in the topic, title, ab- stract, or keywords of just 34 peer-reviewed papers (articles and conference proceed- ings). The predominance of conceptual and illustrative papers demonstrates that this concept is still in its infancy. 3.1. Contributions Our study makes several contributions. Firstly, our study contributes to the litera- ture on digital trust by offering a compre- hensive grasp of its underpinnings in light of recent advances. To support the above thesis, a number ofauthors (Kim et al., 2008; Reis et al., 2018; Marcial and Launer, 2019) concluded that further research on digital trust is needed to better understand how it is changing existing organisational cultures.Secondly, our article may be the- first step in research in the field of digital trust that uses a systematic literature re- view. As noted earlier, this method is still poorly recognised in the field of manage- ment science. 3.2. Limitations and future re- search Despite these contributions, our study has several drawbacks. Firstly, the way we selected the search term had an im- pact on which papers were included in the research; when we used the term “dig- ital trust”,manypapers that used synonyms were omitted. On the other hand, we must understand that there is a hierarchy of Digital trust– asystematic literature review 67 evidence when performing systematic re- views, and that what can be experimentally said about the world comes from studies with a rigorous and explicit design (Ge- bayew et al., 2018). Secondly, while most systematic reviews employ many databases to be more com- plete in their article selection, we chose only one – the Institute for Scientific Infor- mation – Web of Science (ISI).Using other repositories (e.g. Scopus) could result in other publications being included in the analysis. Finally, we only included English- language papers and excluded all other publications (in particular, there was a lack of publications in Russian). The results provide an interesting start- ing point for future research. A system- atic literature review can be conducted for other concepts related to the digital economy, e.g. “digital culture”, “digitalisa- tion”. In addition, other repositories can be used to identify the scale of interest in dig- ital trust, including consideration of works in languages other than English. Moreover, based on existing theories related to dig- ital trust, researchers should create meas- urement models by which to evaluate it (the question that needs to be answered is what affects digital trust?). Finally, the ISI database is updated on a regular basis to includenew peer-reviewed articles.There- fore, important studies that were made pri- or to the publication of this research may have been omitted. Conclusions In this article, we undertooka systematic literature review on digital trust, based on the research area, distribution of publica- tions per author or types of articles in the last twodecades (1996-2020). The most important conclusion to be derived from this study is that there is no single gener- ally accepted definition of digital trust. For this reason,we prepared our own definition. Thus, in general, digital trust is the measure of confidence which workers, consumers/ buyers, partners and other stakeholders have in an organisation’s ability to protect data and the privacy of individuals. Furthermore, while digital trust shares many of the same features as non-digital trust, there are several key differences that are unique to the digital world. Actors, pro- duced actions, vulnerability, and subjective matter are all examples of these contrasts. What is more, maintaining the digital trust of stakeholders (both internal and ex- ternal) isa crucial component of a respon- sible organisational culture. As a result, or- ganisations bearsome of the responsibility for digital trust; they must be proactive in evaluating their internal behaviours and knowledge ecosystems, not just in terms of how and where data is transferred, but also in terms of how these vectors are val- ued within the firm. Understanding what promotes online digital trust is, therefore, critical for busi- ness executives. This paper intends to serve as a foundation and starting point for academic discussion. Thus, our final conclusion is that issues of digital trust require extensive research, both empirical and theoretical. References Abraham, C., Sims, R.R., Daultrey, S., Buff, A., Fealey, A. (2019), How Digital Trust Drives Culture Change,retrieved: https:// sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-digital- trust-drives-culture-change/ (accessed 18 April 2021). Accenture (2015), Digital Trust in the IoT Era, Accenture Consulting. Acedo, F., Casillas, J. (2005), Current para- digms in the international management field: An author co-citation analysis, In- ternational Business Review, 14(5), 619- -639. DOI:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2005.05.003. Akram R.N., Ko, R.K.L. (2014), Digital Trust – Trusted Computing and Beyond: Forum Scientiae Oeconomia • Volume 9 (2021) • No. 368 A Position Paper, 2014 IEEE 13th Interna- tional Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communica- tions (pp. 884-892). DOI: 10.1109/Trust- Com.2014.116. AL-Dwairi, R.M., Kamala, M.A. (2009), An Integrated Trust Model for Business-to- Consumer (B2C) E-Commerce: Integrat- ing Trust with the Technology Accept- ance Model, 2009 International Confer- ence on CyberWorlds (pp. 351-356). DOI: 10.1109/CW.2009.34. Aljazzaf, Z.M., Perry, M., Capretz, M.A.M. (2010), Online Trust: Definition and Principles, 2010 Fifth International Multi- conference on Computing in the Global Information Technology (pp. 163-168). DOI: 10.1109/ICCGI.2010.17. Bachmann, R., Inkpen, A.C. (2011), Under- standing institutional-based trust building processes in inter-organizational relation- ships, Organization Studies, 32(2), 281- 301. DOI: 10.1177/0170840610397477. Bailey, B.P., Gurak, L.J., Konstan, J. (1998), Trust in cyberspace, in: Ch. Forsythe, E. Grose, J. Ratner (Eds.), Human Factors and Web Development (pp. 311-321), New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ- ates. Bapna, R., Gupta, A., Rice, S., Sundarara- jan, A. (2017), Trust and the Strength of Ties in Online Social Networks: An Ex- ploratory Field Experiment, Management Information Systems Quarterly, 41(1), 115- 130. DOI: 10.25300/MISQ/2017/41.1.06. Bauman, A., Bachmann, R. (2017), Online Consumer Trust: Trends in Research, Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 12(2), 68-79. DOI: 10.4067/ S0718-27242017000200008. Berry, L.L. (1995), Relationship Marketing of Services. Growing Interest, Emerg- ing Perspectives, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4), 236-245. DOI: 10.1177/009207039502300402. Blois, K.J. (1999), Trust in Business to Business Relationships. An Evaluation of its Status, Journal of Management Stud- ies, 36(2), 197-215. DOI: 10.1111/1467- 6486.00133. Cook, K., Cheshire, C., Gerbasi, A., Aven, B. (2009), Assessing Trustworthiness in Providers, in: K. Cook, C. Snijders, V. Buskens, C. Cheshire (Eds.), eTrust: Forming relationships in the online world (pp. 189-214), New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Coombes, P., Nicholson, J. (2013), Business models and their relationship in marketing: A systematic literature review. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(5), 656-664. DOI: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.05.005. Dietz, G. (2011), Going back to the source: Why do people trust each other?, Jour- nal of Trust Research, 1(2), 215-222. DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2011.603514. Fletcher, K.P., Peters, L.D. (1997), Trust and Direct Marketing Environments: A Consumer Perspective, Journal of Mar- keting Management, 13,523-539. DOI: 10.1080/0267257 X.1997.9964491. Fogg, B.J. (2003), Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann. Frank, H., Hatak, I. (2014), Doing a research literature review, in: A. Fayolle and M. Wright (Eds.), How to get published in the best entrepreneurship journals (pp. 94-117), Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Friedman, B., Howe, D., Kahn, P. (2000), Trust online, Communications of the ACM, 43(12), 34-40. DOI: 10.1145/355112. 355120. Fukuyama, F. (1995), Trust: The Social Vir- tues and the Creation of Prosperity, New York: The Free Press. Gambetta, D. (1988), Can we trust trust?, in: D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking, Cooperative Relations (pp. 213-237), Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Gcaza, N., von Solms, R. (2017), Cyber- security Culture: An Ill-Defined Problem, retrieved from: https://hal.inria.fr/hal- 01690975/document (accessed 16 April 2021). Gebayew, C., Hardini, I., Panjaitan, G., Kur- niawan, N. (2018), A systematic literature review on digital transformation, Pro- ceedings of the International Conference Digital trust– asystematic literature review 69 on Information Technology Systems and Innovation (pp. 260-265). DOI: 10.1109/ ICITSI.2018.8695912. Gere, C. (2002), Digital Culture, London: Reaktion Books. Geyskens, I., Steenkamp J.B.E.M., Kumar N. (1998), Generalizations about trust in marketing channel relationships us- ing meta-analysis, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 15, 223-248. DOI: 10.1016/S0167-8116(98)00002-0. Golembiewski, R.T., McConkie, M. (1975), The centrality of interpersonal trust in group processes, in: G.L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of group processes (pp. 131- 185), London: John Wiley & Sons. Grabner-Kräuter, S. (2002), The Role of Consumers’ Trust in Online-Shopping, Journal of Business Ethics, 39, 43-50. DOI: 10.1023/A:1016323815802. Grabner-Kräuter, S., Kaluscha, A.E. (2008), Consumer trust in electronic commerce: conceptualization and classification of trust building measures, in: T. Kautonen and H. Karjaluoto (Eds.), Trust and New Technologies. Marketing and Manage- ment on the Internet and Mobile Media (pp. 3-22), Cheltenham-Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing. Impellizzeri, F.M., Bizzini, M. (2012), Sys- tematic Review and Meta-Analysis: A Primer, The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, 7(5), 493-503. Jarvenpaa, S., Rao, V. (2003), Trust in On- line Consumer Exchanges: Emerging Conceptual and Theoretical Trends, in: M.Shaw (Ed.), The E-Commerce and the Digital Economy (pp. 229-246), New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. Kacperska, E., Łukasiewicz, K. (2020), The Importance of Trust in Knowledge Shar- ing and the Efficiency of Doing Business on the Example of Tourism, Information, 11(6), 311. DOI: 10.3390/info11060311. Kim, D.J., Ferin, D.L., Rao, H.R. (2008), A trust-based consumer decision-making model in electronic commerce: the role of trust, perceived risk, and their anteced- ents, Decision Support Systems, 44(2), 544-564. DOI: 10.1016/j.dss.2007.07.001. Khan, W.Z., Aalsalem, M.Y., Khan, M.K., Arshad, Q. (2016), Enabling Consumer Trust Upon Acceptance of IoT Technolo- gies Through Security and Privacy Mod- el, in: J. Park, H. Jin, Y.S. Jeong and M. Khan (Eds.), Advanced Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering (pp. 111-117), New York: Springer. Kramer, R.M., Tyler, T.R. (1996), Trust in Or- ganizations: Frontiers of Theory and Re- search, Thousand Oaks-London-New Delhi: SAGE Publications. Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mul- row, C., Gřtzsche, P.C., Ioannidis, J.P.A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P.J., Kleijnen, J., Moher, D. (2009), The PRISMA state- ment for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evalu- ate health care interventions: explana- tion and elaboration, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62, e1-e34. DOI: 10.1136/ bmj.b2700. Mallet, R., Hagen-Zanker, J., Slater, R., Du- vendack, M. (2012), The benefits and challenges of using systematic reviews in international development research, Journal of Development Effectiveness, 4(3), 445-455. DOI: 10.1080/19439342.2 012.711342. Marcella, A.J. (1999), Establishing trust in vertical markets, Altamonte Springs: The Institute of Internal Auditors. Marcial, D.E., Launer, M.A. (2019), Towards the Measurement of Digital Trust in the Workplace: A Proposed Framework, International Journal of Scientific Engi- neering and Science, 3(12), 1-7. Mattila, J., Seppälä, T. (2016), Digital Trust, Platforms, and Policy, retrieved from: ht- tps://ideas.repec.org/p/rif/briefs/42.html (accessed 15 April 2021). Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D. (1995), An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust, Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734. DOI:10.2307/258792. McKnight, D.H., Choudhury, V., Kacmar, Ch. (2002), Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An in- Forum Scientiae Oeconomia • Volume 9 (2021) • No. 370 tegrative typology, Information Systems Research, 13(3), 334-359. DOI: 10.1287/ isre.13.3.334.81. Metalidou, E., Marinagi, C., Trivellas, P., Eberhagen, N., Skourlas, C., Giannako- poulos, G. (2014), The Human Factor of Information Security: Unintentional Dam- age Perspective, Social and Behavioral Sciences, 147, 424-428. DOI: 10.1016/ j.sbspro.2014.07.133. Miyamoto, T., Rexha, N. (2004), Deter- minants of three facets of customer trust: A marketing model of Japanese buyer–supplier relationship, Journal of Business Research, 57(3), 312-319. DOI: 10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00327-7. Mollering, G. (2006), Trust: Reason, Rou- tine, Reflexivity, Oxford: Elsevier. Okoli, C., Mbarika, V.W., McCoy, A. (2010), The effects of infrastructure and policy on e-business in Latin America and Sub- Saharan Africa, Europe Journal Informa- tion System, 1(19), 5-20. DOI: 10.1057/ ejis.2009.48. Parente, S.L., Prescott, E.C. (1994), Barri- ers to technology adoption and develop- ment, Journal Politic Economy, 2(102), 298-321. Petrosino, A., Boruch, R.F., Soydan, H., Duggan, L., Sanchez-Meca, J. (2001), Meeting the challenges of evidence- based policy: The Campbell Collabora- tion, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 578, 14-34. DOI: 10.1177/00027 1620157800102. Petticrew, M. (2001), Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: Myths and misconceptions, British Medical Journal, 322(7278), 98–101. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.32 2.7278.98. Pohjola, M. (2003), The adoption and dif- fusion of ICT across countries: patterns and determinants, in: D.C. Jones (Eds.), The new economy handbook (pp. 77- 100), New York: Elsevier. Rab, A. (2015), Slow-Tuning Digital Culture, Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Social Analysis, 5(1), 15-27. Raimondo, M. (2000), The Measurement of Trust in Marketing Studies: A Review of Models and Methodologies, Proceed- ings of the 16th Annual IMP International Conference, Bath. Reid, R., van Niekerk, J. (2014), From In- formation Security to Cyber Security Cul- tures Organizations to Societies,retrieved from: https://digifors.cs.up.ac.za/issa/ 2014/ Proceedings/Full/42_Paper.pdf (accessed 15 April 2021). Reis, J., Amorim, M., Melăo, N., Matos, P. (2018), Digital Transformation: A Litera- ture Review and Guidelines for Future Research, in: Á. Rocha, H. Adeli, L.P. Reis and S. Costanzo (Eds.), Trends and Advances in Information Systems and Technologies (pp. 411-421), Cham: Springer. Sauser, W.I., Jr. (2008), Crafting a Culture of Character. The Role of the Executive Suite, in: S.A. Quatro S.A., R.R. Sims (Eds.), Executive Ethics: Ethical Dilem- mas and Challenges for the C-Suite (pp. 1-18), Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Seleznyov, A., Ahmed, M.O, Hailes, S. (2004), Co-Operation in the Dig- ital Age – Engendering Trust in Elec- tronic Environments, BT Technology Journal, 22, 95–105. DOI: 10.1023/B: BTTJ.0000047124.46203.fc. Selke, S., Mallick, B., Holzbach, A. (2008), e-Honesty: Technical Potentials and So- cial Risks of Local e-Government Strat- egies in Bangladesh for Supporting the Fight Against Corruption, Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on E- Government (pp. 475-482). Shepherd, C., Arfaoui, G., Gurulian, I., Lee, R.P., Markantonakis, K., Akram, R.N., Sauveron, D., Conchon, E. (2016), Secure and Trusted Execution: Past, Present and Future – A Critical Review in the Context of the Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems, 2016 IEEE Trustcom/BigDataSE/ISPA 2016 (pp. 168-177). DOI: 10.1109/TrustCom. 2016.0060. Smith, J.B., Barclay, D.W. (1997), The Ef- fects of Organizational Differences and Trust on the Effectiveness of Selling Part- Digital trust– asystematic literature review 71 ner Relationships, Journal of Marketing, 61, 3-21.DOI: 10.2307/1252186. Snyder, H., Witell, L., Gustafsson, A., Fombelle, P., Kristensson, P. (2016), Identifying categories of service in- novation: A review and synthesis of the literature, Journal of Business Re- search, 69(7), 2401-2408. DOI: 10.1016/ j.jbusres.2016.01.009. Taddeo, M. (2009), Defining Trust and E- Trust, International Journal of Technol- ogy and Human Interaction, 5(2): 23-35. DOI: 10.4018/jthi.2009040102. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P. (2003), Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowl- edge by means of systematic review, British Journal of Management, 14, 207- 222. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8551.00375. Uzelac, A. (2008), How to understand dig- ital culture: Digital culture - a resource for a knowledge society?, in: A. Uzelac, B. Cvjetičanin, (Eds.), Digital Culture: The Changing Dynamics (pp. 7-24), Zagreb: Institute for International Relations. Valdani, E., Busacca, B. (1992), Customer satisfaction: una nuova sfida, Economia & Management, 2, 8-27. Van Niekerk, J.F., von Solms, R. (2010), Information security culture: A man- agement perspective, Computers & Security, 29, 476-486. DOI: 10.1016/ j.cose.2009.10.005. Walter, F., Smallbone D. (2006), Exploring the Role of Trust in Entrepreneurial Activ- ity, Entrepreneurship Theory and Prac- tice, 30(4), 465-475. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540- 6520.2006.00130.x. Wang, Y.D., Emurian, H. (2005), An Over- view of Online Trust: Concepts, Ele- ments, and Implications, Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 105-125. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2003. 11.008. Webster, J., Watson, R.T. (2002), Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review, MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii–xxiii. DOI: 10.2307/4132319. Witell, L., Snyder, H., Gustafsson, A., Fo- mbelle, P., Kristensson, P. (2016), De- fining service innovation: A review and synthesis, Journal of Business Re- search, 69(8), 2863-2872. DOI: 10.1016/ j.jbusres.2015.12.055. Wong, S.T.C. (1996), A Cryptologic Based Trust Center for Medical Images, Journal of the American Medical Informatics As- sociation, 3(6), 410-421. DOI: 10.1136/ja- mia.1996. 97084514. Young, L.C., Wilkinson I.F. (1989), The role of trust and cooperation in marketing channels: a preliminary study, European Journal of Marketing, 32,109-122. Zeira, J. (1998), Workers, machines, and economic growth, Quarto Journal Econ- omy, 4(13), 1091-1117. Piotr Pietrzak, PhD, is an adjunct profes- sor at the Management Institute, Warsaw University of Life Sciences (SGGW),Poland. His research interests include public man- agement, efficiency measurement, strategic management, process management, and digital management. He is the author of over 70 articles and fourbooks. His articles have beenpublished in such reputable jour- nals asthe International Journal of Innova- tion and Learning, Human Systems Man- agement, andFoundations of Management. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1319-4815 Prof. Josu Takalaisa professor of Produc- tion Economics at the University of Vaasa, Finland. His main line of research focuses onquality and technology management, production management and logistics, performance measurement systems, and- decision making for operations. His articles have beenpublished in such reputable jour- nals asProcedia-Social and Behavioural Sci- ences, the International Journal of Services and Standards, the International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, In- dustrial Management & Data Systems,and Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5297-1656