1. Introduction
Firms must increasingly create and maximize shared values for customers and society at large (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). To this end, it is prerequisite for companies to create shared values in the process of collaboration between companies and consumers (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). In the collaborative or sharing economy, consumers emphasize societal values and sharing behavior as opposed to ownership of materials (Albinsson & Perera, 2012). Previous literature viewed socially responsible purchase as promoting societal welfare and influencing to ensure fair allocation of resources (Newman, & Bartels, 2011). Similarly, Albinsson, and Perera (2012) contend that sharing economy is driven by the need to share and distribute excess capacity in communities, which can lead to solving environmental problems such as energy waste and air pollution.
In this age of 4th industrial revolution characterized by ease of transaction and increased consumer participation, O2O (Online to Offline) platforms featuring a combination of real life (offline) and cyber (online) traits has grown rapidly. This change has largely contributed to the increased choice between traditional ownership-based economy and sharing-based way of meeting consumers’ needs. The current sharing economy market is expected to grow up to $335 billion which represents 20 times growth over 2015. The key success factor behind this phenomenal growth, to a large extent, lies in the unique feature of O2O platform market which has overcome the high logistics and distribution costs associated with the offline retail markets and reaped the benefits of sharing harnessed with low cost of connection and information.
This study takes a stance of viewing sharing economy as an individual behavioral change empowered by social, and pro-environmental, initiatives that eventually results in social change and increase in corporate sales in retail settings. This viewpoint largely draws on an audience oriented, persuasive-strategic framework to influence adoption of a specific behavior by providing an exchange offer and value (Deshpande, 2019, p. 231). However, there are only a few previous research that addressed sustainable behavior change in the context of sharing economy framework.
It seems worth noting that prior research that approached sharing economy from the perspective of social behavioral change seems quite limited in that they overlooked the social as well as value embedded determinants of social change. For this reason, this study provides empirical evidence that establishes the two proposed predictors (social capital and consumer citizenship) as agents of social change that lead to sales increase in sharing economy. To propose the antecedent ole of social capital, this study draws on a central notion that sharing economy may be viewed as a kind of civic engagement behavior, which has been reported to be a behavioral indicator of social capital (Warren, Shulaiman, & Jaafar, 2015; Chiu, Hu, & Wang, 2006).
Another proposed antecedent of sharing economy is consumer citizenship. The core concept of consumer citizenship rests on participation of citizens in the public sectors (Stevenson, 1997). Some other scholars posited that the term consumer-citizen relates to an individual's value structure (Basil & Weber, 2006; Johnson, 2014). Therefore, it is conceivable that, an individual’s value structure will provide important guidelines for triggering social motivation toward engaging in sharing economy. Drawing on the discussions made so far, this study attempts to determine the antecedent roles of social capital and consumer citizenship on an individual’s decision to engage in sharing economy.
The following table shows a list of previous research that has attempted to investigate the relationship between social capital (and consumer citizenship) and sharing economy participation.
Table 1: Literature Revew of Similar Prior Research
According to Table 1, it seems that most prior studies on social capital have relied on capitalizing on collective activities such as knowledge ahring as part of civic participation, whereas prior studies on citizenship behavior incorporated corporate social responsibility as an important criterion for becoming consumer citizen.
This study pursues the following research objectives. First, drawing on the conceptual premises of social capital theory, this study empirically examines whether social capital indicators (i.e., reciprocal norm and social network) have an impact on sharing economy. Second, this study aims to confirm whether people with a high level of consumer citizenship are more likely to engage in sharing economy. Third, this study adopts two mediators, social identity, and corporate image for their mediating roles on sharing economy.
2. Literature Review and Research Hypotheses
2.1. Social Capital Theory
The social capital theory posits that shared goals among social network members, social relationships, and strong group norms contribute to behavioral participation (Chiu et al., 2006; Warren et al., 2015), which provides theoretical rationale for the current study’s conceptual framework linking social capital with sharing economy behavior.
And further theoretical ground for incorporating social capital in this study may be found from the premise that social capital plays a critical role on sharing economy because civic engagement behavior has been found in the past literature to be an important behavioral manifestation of social capital (Warren, Shulaiman, & Jaafar, 2015; Chiu, Hu, & Wang, 2006). Based on this theoretical rationale, this study views sharing economy participation as a kind of social engagement designed to express community based norm of sharing redundant resources rather buying products or services.
2.2. Socially Responsible Purchase and Sharing Economy Participation
Socially responsible consumers favor the consumption of products and services which do not harm humans, animals, or the environment. Thus, socially responsible consumption touches on a wide array of behaviors requiring sustainable purchasing in daily life (Chun, Hong, Yoon, & Song, 2010).
Many scholars in the past have offered definitions of socially responsible purchase focusing on an ethical code. For instance, Uusitalo and Barnett (1998) defined socially responsible purchase as a behavior associated with control over buying itself. It seems worth noting that most of the past literature has commonly grouped ethical behaviour into fair resource allocation, pro-environmental act, ethical energy use and disposal (Chun et al., 2010). Furthermore, a recent study by Lee (2017) disclosed that personal propensity to trust and social influence affect Chinese consumers’ intention to use O2O based chauffeured car services as part of sharing economy.
2.3. Value Co-Creation Behavior and Sharing Economy
The value co-creation construct has originated from customer engagement concept, the construct is primarily composed of two primary precepts: customer engagement and customer citizenship (Bettencourt, 1997). For instance, Yi and Gong (2012) took on value co-creation to mainly embrace the customer engagement construct. Thus, value co-creation behavior includes the core concepts of sharing economy such as customer engagement and citizenship. Furthermore, in a recent research, Lee and Kim (2015) incorporated CVS to investigate whether correlation exists between the consumers’ demand for value through consumption and the corporate value pursued by companies that are not profit motivated.
2.4. Hypotheses Development
2.4.1. Social capital and sharing economy participation
The interplay between the firms and customers has emerged as the main locus of value co-creation. That is, people do not merely buy products but participate in company management to co-produce offerings that represent the public good (Foster, 2007). As such, social capital based on the norm of generalized reciprocity creates the prospect of a shared value approach with consumers voluntarily participating in sharing economy (Bettencourt, 1997; Groth, 2005).
As discussed earlier, this linkage between social capital and sharing economy needs to be approached from the perspective of the impact of social capital on civic participation (Warren et al., 2015). Previous literature posits that shared goals, social relationships, and group norm boosts the effectiveness of coordination (Kankanhalli, Tan, & Wei, 2005) and collective engagement (Chiu et al., 2006; Warren et al., 2015). Furthermore, McAdam and Paulsen (1993) argued that interpersonal networks induce collective mobilization and reduces its uncertainty.
To summarize, previous studies suggested that people with high levels of social capital in the form of reciprocal norms voluntarily engage in collective activities that creates shared value (Florin, Lubakin, & Schulze, 2003). Based on a review of the previous literature, it is evident that social capital contributes positively to consumers’ engagement in sharing economy in retail context as a means of creating shared value. Thus, this study sets forth the following research hypothesis.
H1: Social capital will have a significant impact on retail sharing economy participation.
2.4.2. Social capital and social identity
Putnam (1995) shows that people with diversified networks having a high level of social capital are likely to obtain norms of reciprocity and trust and thus hold more favourable expectations about people. According to Putnam (1995), social capital refers to social network structures that enable cooperation among members of the social community and promotes coordination and cooperation in dense social networks.
Prior research also explains the role of social networks as a source of identity formation. For instance, social networks were found to relate to social identity (Putnam, 2000). In short, social identities play the role of social networks linking pin between different groups. Lubbers, Mollima, and McCarty (2007) further argued suggest that similarity and dissimilarity of social networks determine identity exclusivity. Similarly, taking part in new social communities contributes to building stronger identities (Maya-Jariego & Armitage, 2007).
Drawing on what has been discussed so far, social network may be argues to have a relationship with social identity. For instance, bonding networks may be said to affect social identity. In sum, people with close social networks may easily identify with their social groups. Hence, this study established a research hypothesis as below.
H2: Social capital in network terms will have a positive effect on social identity.
2.4.3. Social identity and sharing economy participation
Social identity theory proposes that social identity springs from the sense of belongingness (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). The social identity theory also predicts that cognitive, emotional, and evaluative components constitute the core of a person’s group identity (Dholakia, Bagozzi, & Pearo, 2004; Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000).
According to the theory, higher identification encourages stronger relationships with other community members and motivates them to participate and engage in continuing the membership (Hogg & Abrams, 1988). Previous literature establishes that social identity has a positive effect and is the key driver of participation in community affairs (Dholakia et al., 2004). Furthermore, social identity was found to affect political activities (Fowler & Kam, 2007), welfare activities (Fowler & Kam, 2007).
As discussed earlier, people who closely identify with a social group would be more likely to engage in community activities. Thus, it seems plausible to say that consumers’ social identity contributes to community-based behavior designed to promote members’ sense of membership. If sharing economy is to be considered as a collective activity where the online platform operator provides virtual membership, it is arguable that social identity promotes the willingness to participate in retail sharing economy. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis.
H3: Social identity will have a positive effect on retail sharing economy participation.
Based on the proposed three hypotheses, we recommend mediation effects of social identity between social capital and sharing economy as social identity plays a dual role between social capital and retail sharing economy. To verify the potential mediation effect, this study proposes the following hypothesis.
H4: Social identity will mediate between social capital and sharing economy participation.
2.4.4. Consumer citizenship and sharing economy participation
The concept of consumer citizenship is not limited to being an informed buyer but also a self-directed decision maker voluntarily demanding consumers’ responsibilities and rights. The concept surpasses “the rights of people to obtain proper products and information” and embraces participation and corporate social responsibility of citizens in the public sectors (Stevenson, 1997). Citizen-consumers tend to choose products that correspond with their values. Therefore, the term citizen-consumer is a measure of an individual’s value structure (Johnson, 2014). Understanding an individual’s value structure provides important insights into what influences their expectations and attitudes to support a firm’s socially responsible activities (Basil & Weber, 2006). Prior research proposes that self-transcendent (universalistic and benevolent) values embedded in the spirit of consumer citizenship have a positive relationship with expectations of ethical behaviour, participation in corporate social responsibility activities, and product attitude. Therefore, it is inferable that people who are aware of a firm’s corporate social responsibility will likely be positively predisposed toward participating in retail sharing economy as a demonstration of the collective desire to promote sustainable redistribution of redundant resources. Based on this reasoning, this study proposes the following hypothesis.
H5: People with high consumer citizenship awareness will positively engage in retail sharing economy participation.
2.4.5. Consumer citizenship and corporate image
Consumer citizenship refers to the virtue of consumers with a good cause that comprises consumer ethics and participation. Hence, these characteristics of citizen consumers embrace not only the role of the citizen but also socially responsible consumers. Eventually, individual consumers may act as citizens during the entire consumption process and buy goods and services produced by socially responsible firms. Therefore, it is important to understand the mutual relationship between consumer responsibility and rights that constitute the core of consumer citizenship.
Next, a consumer citizen can voluntarily participate in discussions, decision-making, and acting on public issues related to corporate responsibilities. Furthermore, in a similar study to find which corporate responsibility elements most contribute to corporate image, the researchers found that that when people have high CSV awareness, they mainly perceive corporate image through economic responsibility (Lee & Lee, 2014). Based on the above literature review, it is conceivable that consumer citizens are highly sensible about a firm’s corporate social responsibility. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis.
H6: Consumer citizenship will have a positive effect on a firm’s corporate image.
2.4.6. Corporate image and sharing economy participation
Cognitive consistency theories (Osgood & Tannenbaum, 1955) assume that people tend to seek consistency in their beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours. When people experience cognitive inconsistency, they are motivated to reduce this dissonance by developing intention and participating in behaviours that are consistent with their beliefs. When consumers attribute a favourable image to a firm in recognition of its corporate activities, they will likely have favourable intentions toward the firm or its products.
The premise of the attribution theory is that ascribing to a firm’s corporate activities influences attitude and behaviour toward its products. Several studies on the effects of corporate image suggest potential benefits associated with behavioural outcomes such as product attitude, purchase intention, and loyalty (Lee, 2017). More specifically, previous studies reveal that a strong corporate image enhances affective attitude toward buying products from socially responsible firms and building loyalty (Lee, 2017). Similarly, consumers’ perception of a firm’s motives about corporate philanthropy relates positively to their active engagement with the firm.
Therefore, these previous studies suggest that corporate image associated with collaborative platform operators will create an approach to engaging in retail sharing economy. Thus, this study proposes the following hypothesis.
H7: Corporate image of collaborative platform operators will have a positive effect on retail sharing economy participation.
In view of the dual interactivity of corporate image between consumer citizenship and sharing economy proposed earlier, it is hypothesized that corporate image may mediate between consumer citizenship and sharing economy participation. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed.
H8: Corporate image will mediate between consumer citizenship and sharing economy participation.
3. Research Methods and Materials
3.1. Research Model
This study aimed to corroborate the hypothesized roles of social capital and consumer citizenship on sharing economy participation and to find out whether social identity and perceived corporate image mediate the relationship between social capital and consumer citizenship to sharing economy participation. Based on the research hypotheses proposed so far, this study developed a research as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Research Model
3.2. Study Subjects
To verify the hypothesized relationships, we conducted a face-to-face questionnaire survey on a sample of 400 adult respondents aged over 20 years and residing in the metropolitan areas of South Korea. This study adopted a convenience sampling method using self-administered response. To ensure semantic correctness of the survey questions, the study ran a pilot test on 40 respondents before administering a field survey and the pilot test confirmed the validity of the questions.
Finally, 50 questionnaires were discarded as they were considered inappropriate because of incorrect responses, and finally used 350 questionnaires for statistical analyses.
To avoid any response bias, we selected respondents with previous experience (purchase or uses) in purchasing products or services provided by collaborative service operators after giving them specific operator examples (Airbnb, Tada, Uber, SoCar) currently operating in South Korea. All data collection procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and appropriate institutional committee approved them.
3.3. Scale Measures and Operational Definition
The scale consists of five divisions, and all items were completed using a seven-point Likert scale with “1=totally disagree, ” “4= neutral, ” and “7=totally agree.” The scale has 16 items for social capital, 6 items for consumer citizenship, 9 items for both perceived corporate image and social identity, and 12 items for sharing economy participation.
3.3.1. Social capital
The questions used for social capital were adapted from Williams’ (2006) study, from which four items were selected. The items are as follows: “I have some people whom I can trust to solve my problems, ” “I have people who can help me with important decisions, ” “I always have people to speak with when I am lonely, ” and “People I interact with will risk their reputation for me.” The six items used for bridging capital were adapted from Williams’ (2006). The questions are as follows: “when I interact with people, I get interested in things taking place outside, ” “when I interact with people, I feel like trying new things, ” “when I interact with people, I get curious about what others think, ” and “when I interact with people, I get curious about other places of the world.
3.3.2. Consumer citizenship
Consumer citizenship is defined as the desire to be a responsible and socially aware community. The scales for three sub-dimensions of consumer citizenship contain three components. Autonomy is the “capacity or qualification to be able to choose something that is significant to someone”; sense of community is the “attitude toward placing community’s advancement ahead of personal advancement”; and sense of participation is the “commitment to actively take part in community or public affairs.” Autonomy has three items: “I voluntarily adhere to basic legal regulations, ” I decide on my future on my own, ” and “I make judgment based on my own values, not on ambient situations.” Sense of community contains three items: “I like to help people around me who are in need, ” “When given an opportunity, I like to represent the community I belong to, ” and “I like speaking with people about community affairs.” Sense of participation has three items: “I do my best to participate in group activities or events, ” “I openly provide my opinions whenever the situation requires improvement, ” and “I like to voluntarily involve myself in solving community issues.”
3.3.3. Perceived corporate image
This study defined perceived corporate image as the degree to which people believe a firm is giving support to social activities (Perez & Rodrıguez del Bosque, 2013). This study defined corporate activities involvement as how much people assign personal relevance or importance to a firm’s social initiative. For this variable, this study adapted five items from a scale used in Zaichkowsky (1985) as follows: “A company’s corporate social responsibility activities are important to me, ” “Firm’s corporate activities are relevant with me, ” “Firm’s corporate activities are valuable for me, ” I am much interested in corporate activities, ” and “Firm’s corporate activities have symbolic value for me”.
3.3.4. Identity
Previous research suggested that members of a group intimately identify other members of the same group as opposed to other comparative groups (Dholakia et al., 2004). And this study drew on research by Han (2001) to adopt six items related to the affective (3 items) and evaluative dimensions (3 items).
They are as follows: “I feel strongly attached to the sharing economy community, ” “I am happy to be a member of the sharing economy community, ” “I am proud that I am a member of the sharing economy community, ” “I have a strong sense of belongingness to the sharing economy community, ” “My identity is consistent with sharing economy goals, ” and “My self-image is identical to the image of the sharing economy community.”
3.3.5. Sharing economy participation
In this study, we consider sharing economy participation as a behavior that yields value co-creation among participants where voluntary customer participation in sharing economy manifests personal and moral beliefs about reallocating resources that result in creating shared value. A review of the extant literature on value co-creation shows that the concept has been operationalized as consisting of feedback (Groth, 2005), customer recommendations (Bettencourt, 1997). Drawing upon previous studies, this study proposes three components of sharing economy as below.
1) Customer engagement: “I intend to make suggestions for the sharing economy operator to apply when problems occur, ” “I intend to make suggestions for the sharing economy operator to improve service quality, ” and “I will actively voice my opinion to institute new changes in the sharing economy policies.”
2) Helping: “I am willing to help the sharing economy operator, ” “I feel intimate with the sharing economy operator, ” and “I will continue to support the sharing economy firm.”
3) Advocacy: “I will recommend services provided by the sharing economy operator, ” “I will recommend the sharing economy operator’s offerings, ” and “I will keep using the sharing economy services.”
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. General Characteristics of the Sample Respondents
The respondents are composed of 175 of males and 175 females. The age distribution was 15.4% (20s), 23.7% (30s), 23.1% (40s), 30% (50s), and 7.7% (above 60). As for education level, it was 48.9% (high school graduates or below), 33.7% (college graduates), 13.1% (university graduates), and 4.3% (graduate degree). As for occupation, 18.3% (managers), and 9.7% (others) and 16.6% (professionals), 31.4% (office workers), 24.0% (service professionals).
4.2. Results of Validity and Reliability Tests
4.2.1. Validity of measures
To test the validity of the scale items, the study, the study performed a confirmatory factor analysis with the result showing acceptable fitness (rmsea=.155, AGFI=.887).
Table 2: Result of Confirmatory Factor Analysis
In order to obtain the reliability of the scale items, the study conducted reliability tests with the result showing all factors have Cronbach’s alpha scores exceeding .7. The calculation of CR and average value explained (AVE) revealed appropriate levels of convergent validity with all CR scores exceeding .70 and AVEs over .5.
Table 3: Result of Reliability Test
4.2.2. Correlations
We performed correlation n analysis on the major latent factors extracted from the factor analysis. The result shows that consumer citizenship and corporate image correlate highly with sharing economy at .667 and .606, respectively. Moreover, AVE scores for each construct were bigger than the correlation coefficients squared for all constructs located on cross-section, thus establishing divergent validity.
Table 4: Result of Correlations Analysis
4.3. Hypotheses Verification
This study constructed an SEM model to verify the relationships between social capital, consumer citizenship, social identity, corporate image, and sharing economy. SEM analysis confirmed that the measurement model had an acceptable fit (χ²=221.234, χ²/DF=5.732, RMSEA=.105, AGFI=.903, CFI=.921, TLI=.898, NFI=.915). Test of H1 revealed that social capital has a significant impact on sharing economy participation (est=.223, C.R.=3.657, p<.001). Verification for H2 shows that social capital also has a significant influence on social identity (est=.475, C.R.=4.448, p<.001). The results of H3 verification indicate that social identity has a significant impact on sharing economy (est=.113, C.R.=2.348, p<.05). Verification of H5 shows that consumer citizenship significantly influences sharing economy (est=.699 C.R.=6.872, p<.001). Verification for H6 confirmed that consumer citizenship also has a significant impact on corporate image (est=.535, C.R.=5.231, p<.001). Finally, corporate image has a significant impact on sharing economy (est=.622, C.R.=6.132, p<.001), thus confirming H7.
4.3.1. Mediating effects of social identity and perceived corporate image
Next, the study performed a SEM analysis using bootstrapping to obtain direct/indirect effects in order to test the mediating effects of social identity and corporate image. Accordingly, it was found that the path from social capital to sharing economy produced a total effect of .635 (p<.05) with the indirect effect being .342 (p<.05). Thus, we concluded that social identity significantly mediates the relationship between social capital and sharing economy at a .05 significance level.
Next, to verify the mediation effect of corporate image, the study calculated the total effect of path between consumer citizenship and sharing economy with a total effect of .820 (p<.001) and an indirect effect of .465 (p<.001). Thus, we concluded that corporate image significantly mediates the relationship between consumer citizenship and sharing economy at a .01 significance level. The result indicates that the perceived corporate image of the sharing economy operators has a greater mediation effect on sharing economy than social identity.
Table 5: Verification of Mediating Effects
5. Discussions and Implications
5.1. Hypotheses Verification
Hypothesis 1 (H1) about the influence of social capital on sharing economy participation was fully supported. This outcome indicates that social networking strengthens sharing economy participation. Social capital also affected social identity in support of H2. The result indicates that people closely connected in social networks can readily identify with their social groups (e.g., collaborative consumers). Hypothesis 3 (H3) on the effect of social identity on sharing economy participation was also supported, which indicates that people who intimately identify with social groups are likely to participate in sharing economy. Hypothesis 5 (H5) proposed the effect of consumer citizenship on sharing economy participation, and the result supports this relationship, indicating that people with a high degree of community sense and autonomy are more likely to engage in sharing economy participation. Hypothesis (H6) hypothesized the impact of consumer citizenship on perceived corporate image. The result suggests that people with a high degree of citizenship are more likely to perceive a positive image of the sharing economy operators. Hypothesis 7 (H7), which proposed the impact of perceived corporate image on sharing economy, was supported, demonstrating that people who regard sharing economy operators as fulfilling their social responsibilities tend to participate in sharing economy.
This study also verified the hypothesized mediating role of social identity between social capital and sharing economy participation, and the result shows that this hypothesis (H4) is acceptable. Thus, consumers who possess much social capital will take part in sharing economy through the intervention of social identity awareness. The study also aimed to determine if corporate image mediates between consumer citizenship and sharing economy participation (H8). The result suggests that people with a high degree of consumer citizenship engage in sharing economy participation through a positive corporate image of the sharing economy operators.
The study result imparts important theoretical implications that are applicable to sharing economy research. The result also provides strategic implications on formulating customer-oriented sales strategies to promote sharing economy participations.
5.2. Theoretical and Practical Implications
This study provides a fresh perspective on the theoretical implications that provide new insights. First, the causality coefficients obtained from the SEM analysis show that the highest impact is between consumer citizenship and sharing economy participation, implying that people who enjoy autonomy and a sense of community and participation are more likely to participate in sharing economy. This result is supported by the prior literature suggesting that people with high levels of self-awareness put collective good ahead of their personal interests in social circumstances and pledge actions that are designed to promote social good (Kjeldal, 2003). However, there is no prior research advocating that sharing economy may be induced by societal norms. Therefore, follow-up research must incorporate some normative measures as antecedent factors of sharing economy. For this purpose, future research may adopt constructs that primarily address an individual’s self reflective stance toward society, such as subjective norms, self-monitoring, or self-construal.
Second, this study shows that sharing economy is significantly subject to social capital. This result implies that people who maintain strong social relationships share social values that stem from sharing economy buying. Previous literature supports this finding in that they mostly research found social capital to cause civic engagement behavior (Warren et al., 2015). Previous research also suggests that shared goals and social relationships contribute to participatory behavior (Warren et al., 2015). Further, previous findings indicate that future research must incorporate these socially embedded variables to determine their impact on sharing economy participations.
The study results offer some new insights on strategic implications for O2O sharing economy platform operators in retail settings. First, the finding that social identity mediates between social capital and sharing economy participation provides important practical implications retail platform operators. To bolster this social identity, the retail platform operators can encourage users to feel comfortable with their membership in either online platform community (i.e., AirBnB site membership) or provide some social opportunities to bolster users’ relationships with offline accommodation providers. This way, user may be able to have greater sense of membership in online and offline experiences.
In addition, it is important to find ways to evoke consumer citizenship through a greater sense of community and participation, since it was found to be a principal predictor of sharing economy participation. For instance, O2O retail platform operators can implement social initiatives that may induce people to evaluate the benefits of participating in O2O platforms. It may be useful to implement voice-of-customer suggestion system so that participants can feel comfortable and proud of their involvement in O2O platform communities.
5.3. Recommendations and Limitations
This study provides a few of future research directions. First, future research must categorize firms or products for sharing economy products. This will help researchers capture the impact of a firm or product-specific effects on an individual’s decision to use or reuse sharing economy products rendered by various platform operators. Another potential research direction is the role of emotion in promoting sharing economy purchase. Previous research indicates that social capital can contribute to community members feeling “life satisfaction.” For instance, many studies show empirical evidence for the positive relationship between social support and life satisfaction (Kong & You, 2013). Based on these observations, future research on sharing economy participation may explore the impact of affective outcomes of social capital on sharing economy participation.
The follow-up studies may need to address the study limitations. As this study focused on specific geographic regions based on convenience sampling, it may be difficult to generalize the results. Further, this study did not investigate the specific areas of offline retail services as separate function of O2O platform which offers a combination of offline retail services as well as online P2P services. It will be very interesting to see if the offline retail level services influence the overall evaluation of the platform.
References
- Albinsson, P. A., & Perera, B. Y. (2012). Alternative marketplaces in the 21st century: Building community through sharing events. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11(4), 303-315. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1389
- Basil D. Z., & Weber D. (2006). Values motivation and concern for appearances: The effect of personality traits on responses to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector, 11(1), 61-72. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.38
- Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Self-categorization, affective commitment, and group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in an organization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(4), 555-577. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466600164633
- Bettencourt, L. A. (1997). Customer voluntary performance: customers as partners in service delivery. Journal of Retailing, 73(3), 383-406. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(97)90024-5
- Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., & Wang, E. T. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1872-1888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2006.04.001
- Chun, K.H., Hong, Y.G., Yoon, Y.A., & Song, I.S. (2010). Good consumption and ethical consumption. Sigma Press, Seoul.
- Dholakia, U. M., Bagozzi, R. P., & Pearo, L. K. (2004). A social influence model of consumer participation in network and small-group-based virtual communities. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22(3), 241-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2003.12.004
- Deshpande, S. (2019). Social marketing's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT): A commentary. Social Marketing Quarterly, 25(4), 231-242. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524500419881770
- Florin, J., Lubatkin, M., & Schulze, W. (2003). A social capital model of high-growth ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 46(2), 374-384.
- Foster, R. J. (2007). The work of the 'new economy': consumers, brands, and value creation. Cultural Anthropology, 22(4), 707-731. https://doi.org/10.1525/can.2007.22.4.707
- Fowler, J. H., & Kam, C. D. (2007). Beyond the self: Social identity, altruism, and political participation. Journal of Politics, 69(3), 813-827. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00577.x
- Groth, M. (2005). Customers as good soldier: examining citizenship behaviors in internet service deliveries. Journal of Management, 31(1), 7-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206304271375
- Johnson, A.M. (2014). Educating the consumer-citizen in a world of finite resources. International Journal of Home Economics, 7(1), 36-47.
- Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C., & Wei, K. K. (2005). Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: an empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 113-143. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148670
- Kong, F., & You, X. (2013). Loneliness and self-esteem as mediators between social support and life satisfaction in late adolescence. Social Indicators Research. 11(3), 271-279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9930-6
- Lee, J.H. (2017). A study on the relationship between sharing economy and the intention to use O2O based chauffeured car services. Journal of Distribution Science, 15(12), 73-84.
- Lee, D.K., & Lee, M.J. (2014). A study on the effects of corporate social responsibility on corporate image formation and corporate performance: Comparison of differences in CSV awareness. Journal of Distribution Science, 12(9), 101-112.
- Lee, Y.I., & Kim, Y.S. (2015). Social economy and creating shared value (CSV) from the consumer's perspective. Journal of Distribution Science, 13(12), 53-63.
- Lubbers, M. J., Molina, J. L., & McCarty, C. (2007). Personal networks and ethnic identifications the case of migrants in Spain. International Sociology, 22(6), 721-741. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580907082255
- Maya-Jariego, I.., & Armitage, N. (2007). Multiple senses of community in migration and commuting the interplay between time, space and relations. International Sociology, 22(6), 743-766. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580907082259
- McAdam, D., & Paulsen, R. (1993). Specifying the relationship between social ties and activism. American Journal of Sociology, 99(3), 640-667. https://doi.org/10.1086/230319
- Osgood, C.E., & Tannenbaum, P.H. (1955). The principle of congruity in the production of attitude change. Psychological Review, 62(1), 42-55 https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048153
- Perez, A., & Rodriguez del Bosque, I. (2013). Measuring corporate image: three studies to develop and to validate a reliable measurement tool. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(2), 265-286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1588-8
- Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creating unique value with customers. Strategy & Leadership, 32(3), 4-9. https://doi.org/10.1108/10878570410699249
- Putnam, D. Robert (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65-78. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1995.0002
- Stevenson, H., Reed, J., Bodison, P., & Bishop, A. (1997). Racism stress management racial socialization beliefs and the experience of depression and anger in African American youth. Youth & Society, 29(2), 197-222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X97029002003
- Warren, A. M., Sulaiman, A., & Jaafar, N. I. (2015). Understanding civic engagement behavior on Facebook from a social capital theory perspective. Behaviour & Information Technology, 34(2), 163-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2014.934290
- Williams, D. (2006). On and off the 'net' scales for social capital in an online era. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(3), 593-628. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00029.x
- Yi, Y.J, & Gong, T.S. (2012). Customer value co-creation behavior: scale development and validation. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1279-1284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.02.026
- Zaichkowsky, J. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341-352. https://doi.org/10.1086/208520
Cited by
- User Responses Towards Information Distribution of Copyright Law No. 28 of 2014 Concerning Permits for Commercial Use of Music Performing Rights vol.20, pp.1, 2022, https://doi.org/10.15722/jds.20.01.202201.55