Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Next Article in Journal
Designing and Evaluating Games for Landslides, Earthquakes, and Fires: Lesson Learned from Schools in Nepal
Previous Article in Journal
Machine Learning a Probabilistic Structural Equation Model to Explain the Impact of Climate Risk Perceptions on Policy Support
Previous Article in Special Issue
Investigating Consumer Attitudes and Market Trading of Edible Marine Invasive Alien Species in the Greek Seafood Market
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 23
10.3390/su162310294
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of Perceived Benefits, Value, and Relationships of Brands in an Online-to-Offline Context: Moderating Effect of ESG Activities

by
Meili Liang
,
Jianwei Yu
and
Changhyun Jin
*
Department of Business Administration, Kyonggi University, Suwon-si 16227, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(23), 10294; https://doi.org/10.3390/su162310294
Submission received: 1 October 2024 / Revised: 15 November 2024 / Accepted: 20 November 2024 / Published: 25 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Consumer Behavior and Sustainable Consumption: Opportunities and Challenges)
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<p>Conceptual research model.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Path analysis.</p> ">
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The objective of this study was to investigate how perceived benefits and risks affect perceived value, as well as to examine the relationship between perceived value, consumer–brand relationships, and loyalty. The study examines the moderating effects of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance on the abovementioned relationships by applying a value-based adoption model. An online survey was conducted with consumers who used a food-delivery-service platform, totaling 754 participants. The SPSS 27 statistical package and SmartPLS 4.0 were used to test the research hypotheses, as well as to verify the moderating effects. The results indicate that product quality and specialization have positive effects on perceived value; however, delivery convenience does not. The analysis also found that perceived risk factors associated with delivery-service platforms, specifically, delivery risk, delivery security, and product heterogeneity, have positive effects on perceived value. These results imply that perceived value is linked to consumer perceptions of perceived benefits or risks and is closely related to the formation of customer–brand relationships with delivery platform companies. In addition, it was found that consumer–brand relationships formed in this way act as a decisive factor in the formation of corporate brand loyalty. ESG activity was found to play an important role in moderating the relationship between product quality and specialization, which are factors regarding perceived benefits and value. The ESG performance of delivery-service platforms plays a moderating role in the relationship between perceived value, consumer–brand relationships, and brand loyalty. The results of this study contribute to the development of strategic guidelines for marketers seeking to establish delivery-service platforms.

1. Introduction

The rapid development of information and communication technology (ICT) has blurred the boundaries between online and offline stores. Online services, previously provided only on PCs, are increasingly making deliveries ordered through mobile devices. In addition, innovative services have been made possible by overcoming the limitations of time and place. In this technological and economic environment, the global online-to-offline (hereafter O2O) market is growing rapidly. The core of O2O services involves finding consumers online and converting them into customers, and it was initially introduced to attract customers to actual offline stores. Currently, the O2O concept is being expanded and is being used to provide a service that creates new value for consumers by organically connecting online stores with offline customers using online platforms [1].
Around 2010, food delivery platforms began providing services to consumers. Such a platform in the past was simply a means of submitting food orders and triggering deliveries through phone calls. Globally, food delivery platforms are developing a new business model through organizational changes based on digital technology. As the COVID-19 pandemic developed, the paradigm of “intact consumption life” became commonplace. Specifically, quarantine policies such as restrictions on business hours and personnel changed how consumers patronize restaurants, with food delivery replacing onsite dining in food consumption culture [2]. The new digital transformation paradigm has enabled food delivery platforms to grow rapidly. The growth of these platforms has enabled restaurants to expand their physical reach through cost-effective channel expansion and has improved access to food for consumers [3,4]. Constraints on face-to-face activities resulting from COVID-19 have increased consumer and restaurant industry acceptance of these food delivery platforms, which not only created a normal business environment for restaurants amid the risk of spreading infectious diseases but also generated social and economic value by increasing access to food for consumers [3,4,5,6,7].
Existing research has focused on the intention to use mobile delivery app services, as well as user satisfaction with these services. Research on delivery services and apps has focused mainly on consumer attitudes, behavioral motivations, and service quality. This study applies value-based theory to overcome these limitations [8]. The main purpose of this research is to apply value-based theory to examine the perceived value of such services in terms of benefits and sacrifices based on the experiences and situations of service users. It is of great academic and practical significance to examine the process affecting the perceived value of delivery-service platforms and the associated companies’ capacity to generate brand loyalty and form strong consumer–brand relationships. Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance has recently attracted attention as a factor in the formation of corporate brand loyalty and increasing long-term corporate value. This is because ESG performance is an indicator of the impact of related activities on corporate and social sustainability, minimizing the environmental and social damage a company may cause and increasing the fairness and effectiveness of its governance structure.
The O2O food delivery platform market is seen to have high growth potential, with many companies now participating, intensifying competition. Despite the growth and expansion of the delivery-service platform market, related research has not analyzed this market from multiple angles. With the widespread adoption of smart mobile devices, online shopping behavior has changed significantly. Today, consumers’ shopping lives are inseparable from mobile devices, enabling products to be purchased anytime, anywhere, and on the go, creating convenient real-time shopping experiences for consumers [9]. The adoption of technology by delivery-service platform companies encourages consumers to purchase products through online media. In recent years, food delivery platforms have provided additional services and convenience to consumers. As a result of these changes in the social environment, the O2O food delivery platform market has grown rapidly and functions efficiently through a system of riders, utilizing AI and digital technology as an alternative to existing traditional delivery services. This phenomenon seems to be providing a high-quality delivery service experience to consumers as end customers. Rombach et al., Zhang et al., and Yao et al. have mentioned that O2O platform businesses create a space for transactions so that consumers and suppliers meet and trade in specific areas [5,6,7], namely, by providing an operating system for transactions. O2O platform businesses are expanding into various lifestyle areas such as food delivery, chauffeur, cleaning, and housekeeping services, as well as professional services involving ITC, design work, and legal advice [6].
O2O involves the purchase of services or products that are sold to online consumers without boundaries between online and offline activity. O2O also creates new value by finding consumers online and attracting them offline [1,5,7]. The most important point regarding O2O services is that they support offline activities online. O2O as a business model harmonizes reality and virtuality and is defined as combining offline and online activity to expand not only business but also marketing channels. Studies related to O2O delivery-service platforms consistently emphasized that the global O2O service market is rapidly expanding through multiple business models using ICT in a wide range of industries. An O2O service is a transactional form in which users search for, purchase, and pay for goods or services online and then consume them offline. O2O services can be divided into two main types—businesses that expand transaction channels for existing online and offline companies, and advanced businesses based on platforms. An O2O platform also provides content, marketing, and payment services through the “service platform”. In addition, business operators receive service requests through “business platforms” and then provide the corresponding services [3,4,5,6,7].
This research holds significant importance in analyzing how ESG (environmental, social, and governance) activities influence brand value formation in the O2O environment, which is a key trend in modern business. Specifically, by examining how consumer-perceived benefits, values, and brand relationships impact overall brand evaluation in the digital transformation era, and by investigating the moderating effects of corporate ESG activities on these relationships, this study provides practical implications for establishing sustainable growth strategies for businesses.
In this study, based on a value-based acceptance model and related prior research, we analyze factors (product quality, product specialization, and delivery convenience) that are perceived by consumers to deliver value in the context of O2O delivery-service platforms. This study focuses on risk factors (delivery risk, security risk, and product heterogeneity) and verifies the impact of these factors on perceived consumer value. Furthermore, by adopting a company’s ESG performance as a moderating variable, we further examine the moderating impact of ESG performance on the relationship between perceived value, consumer brand relationship, and brand loyalty. The results of this study should provide specific guidelines, enabling marketers to develop effective marketing strategies and secure the competitiveness of O2O delivery-service platform companies.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Value-Based Adoption Theory

The value-based acceptance model (VAM) represents a theory that explains acceptance behavior with respect to ICT or information-system users based on the concept of perceived value proposed by Wang et al. [10]. Kim et al. [8] pointed out that the technology acceptance model (TAM) has limitations in explaining users’ intentions to accept information systems when it only considers system quality factors and user attitudes [8]. It has been argued that perceived benefit factors (usefulness and enjoyment) and perceived sacrifice factors (technical characteristics and perceived costs) for information-system users could influence acceptance intentions through perceived value.
The VAM classifies benefits (utility, enjoyment) and sacrifices (technical characteristics, perceived cost) as factors that exert a major influence on perceived value and analyzed acceptance intentions arising from the choices offered in regards to new services, products, and technologies. The cost–benefit paradigm is fundamental in reflecting the decision-making process involving comparison of uncertain costs [9,11,12]. In particular, the difference between the TAM and the VAM is that the VAM explains technology acceptance based on perceived value, as formulated in the work of Wang et al. [10].
Existing studies have variously defined and classified factors that contribute to the abovementioned benefits and sacrifices. In this study, classification criteria and items proposed by existing researchers are synthesized and organized with reference to studies that emphasize the accuracy and timeliness of information and studies that categorize benefits by reference to timeliness, completeness, consistency, usefulness, enjoyment, convenience, and reliability [13,14,15,16]. Kim et al. have divided sacrifices into technical characteristics and perceived costs. Costs have been classified into technical and cognitive efforts, perceived cost, and perceived risk [8,17,18].
Ultimately, factors presented in previous studies have been reorganized to fit this study. In addition, considering characteristics of O2O food-delivery-service platforms, this study focuses specifically on perceived benefits and perceived risks. Perceived benefits consist of quality, product specialization, and delivery convenience, while perceived risks consists of delivery risk, security risk, and product heterogeneity.

2.2. Perceived Benefits, Value, and Consumer–Brand Relationship

Perceived benefits are positive outcomes that consumers associate with a product, consisting of benefits consumers gain after purchasing and using a product or service [19]. Perceived benefits inform attitudes reflecting the recognition of superior products or services experienced by consumers [10]. These perceived benefits are important factors that allow consumers to accept products or services and continue to use them [20]. The more benefits consumers perceive as obtainable through purchasing and using products or services, the stronger the intention to accept those products and services [21,22,23,24].
Perception enables an individual to notice and evaluate things around him. The risk is that events do not occur as expected. According to another definition, risk is the subjective opportunity to identify losses that can occur when deciding to engage in online transactions. Perceived risk reflects the belief that mobile service users are likely to be exposed to risk [25,26]. Perceived risks are often reflected in management that attempts to prevent, overcome, and protect systems from harmful behaviors such as unauthorized use, intrusion, and information theft. Perceived risk is risk as perceived by consumers in situations where various possible outcomes cannot be sufficiently predicted [27]. Perceived risk in studies related to consumer behavior reflects the likelihood that consumer purchasing decisions about a particular brand or product may have negative consequences [28].
Perceived value can be explained as the sum of the benefits a consumer can obtain from purchasing (using) a product or service and the cost (sacrifice) they must bear to purchase (use) it [10,29,30,31]. As perceived value increases, immersion in and satisfaction with a specific object increases, and ultimately, the willingness to maintain a lasting relationship with the object is strengthened [10,29,30,31]. Perceived value plays a mediating role in the relationship between the characteristics of a product and the intention underlying an individual’s action, or it may be a prerequisite for inducing action [30,31,32,33]. Therefore, this study recognizes perception as a prerequisite for perceived value. The study attempts to verify their influence by adopting several benefit-related variables (product quality, product specialization, delivery convenience) and perceived risk-related variables (delivery risk, security risk, product heterogeneity), and also to verify the effects of perceived value on the formation of consumer–brand relationships.

2.3. Consumer–Brand Relationship and Brand Loyalty

Just as people form relationships with each other in different ways in their daily lives, consumers establish personal relationships with the products and brands they purchase [34,35,36]. A consumer–brand relationship refers to the bond formed as a result of the interaction between consumers and brands as equal parties [34,36,37,38]. Establishing relationships between consumers and brands plays a crucial role in building strong bonds [35,36,37,38]. The relationship between consumers and brands goes beyond simply repurchasing due to satisfaction with the brand’s performance or service; it includes consumers attributing personality to brands and forming relationships similar to those between humans. The effects of building consumer–brand relationships manifest in several relationship-building outcomes, such as behavioral loyalty, attitudinal attachment, sense of community, and active engagement. These outcomes emerge as the results of successful consumer–brand relationship building efforts. The relationship encompasses more than traditional transactional interactions, developing into a more complex and multifaceted connection that mirrors human interpersonal relationships [37,38,39]. This has been a very important research topic inasmuch as high-quality brand relationships can reduce marketing costs, increase consumer ownership, and consequently, result in higher returns and brand equity [36,37,38]. Many existing studies have attempted to identify causal relationships between consumers and brands by using a qualitative methodology [39,40].

2.4. ESG Management

ESG, which has become an essential element of investment attraction, is an acronym derived from the words environment, social, and governance. It refers to responsible business activities related to a company’s environmental and social responsibilities, along with corporate governance with transparency [41,42]. In ESG, “environment” refers to activities aimed at protecting the environment, such as carbon emission control, resource consumption control, waste reduction, and eco-friendly production. The “social” aspect includes product responsibility and respect for local communities and stakeholders. “Governance” relates to corporate efforts such as management responsibility, protection of shareholder rights, and the establishment of board oversight systems. ESG is a tool that, from an investment perspective, allows stakeholders to consider both financial and non-financial performance when making investment decisions [41,42,43]. As ESG refers to environmental policies, management practices, social contributions, and the establishment of transparent governance structures, its evaluation criteria extend beyond purely financial metrics [43].
ESG issues are risk-management issues, emphasizing the role of investors, shareholders, and governments. On the other hand, corporate ESG activities are being rapidly incorporated into competitive strategies. The role of ESG has been discussed in academic literature for more than 30 years. A company’s ESG performance is closely linked to the company’s financial and non-financial performance. Today, ESG activities enable companies to remain competitive as stakeholder pressure regarding environmental issues such as climate change, pollution, and waste increases significantly. The presence or absence of a company’s ESG activities is effectively changing corporate management [41,42,43].

3. Hypotheses and Research Model

3.1. Research Hypotheses

The value-based adoption model (VAM) suggests that consumers seek to maximize value when adopting new technologies or services [8]. Product quality, as a dimension of perceived benefits, plays a crucial role in shaping consumer evaluation of services. According to previous research, the greater the perceived benefits, including product quality, the more positively consumers evaluate a company’s offerings [44,45]. When consumers perceive high product quality, it strengthens their trust in digital applications and increases satisfaction, potentially leading to a higher frequency of service use [4,45]. Therefore, product quality, as a key component of perceived benefits, is expected to positively influence perceived value.
H1. 
Product quality of consumer-perceived benefits will positively affect perceived value.
Product specialization represents a unique aspect of perceived benefits that contributes to consumer value assessment. The VAM framework emphasizes that individual characteristics and specific tendencies influence technology adoption [8]. In the context of digital services, product specialization serves as a distinctive benefit that can enhance consumer perception of value. Previous studies on Internet and SNS marketing have demonstrated that specialized offerings contribute significantly to overall consumer evaluation [32,46]. As consumers seek to maximize value in their service interactions, product specialization represents a tangible benefit that can positively impact perceived value.
H2. 
Product specialization of consumer-perceived benefits will positively affect perceived value.
Delivery convenience aligns with the VAM’s emphasis on usefulness and enjoyment as key variables of perceived benefits [8]. Research has shown that promoting conditions, particularly those related to service convenience, have strong positive effects on perceived value [8]. In the context of delivery services, convenience represents a critical benefit that can enhance consumer satisfaction and service adoption. The literature suggests that when services provide enhanced convenience, it strengthens consumer trust and increases usage frequency [4,45].
H3. 
Delivery convenience of consumer-perceived benefits will positively affect perceived value.
Drawing from Masoud’s framework of six key risk factors, delivery risk represents a critical dimension affecting consumer purchasing decisions [47]. The relationship between risk and value is complex, as perceived risk typically reduces trust in services [47,48]. However, when delivery services effectively manage and mitigate these risks, it can positively influence perceived value. The capacity to provide reliable delivery service and transaction guarantees has been shown to directly impact order volumes and consumer trust [47,48].
H4. 
Delivery risk of consumer-perceived risks will positively affect perceived value.
Security risk is fundamental in digital market contexts, where information security and transaction safety are paramount concerns [44,49]. Previous research has identified security as a critical factor in building trust and value perception in digital services. When security risks are effectively managed and minimized, it can positively influence consumer trust and perceived value [8,50]. This aligns with findings that demonstrate how enhanced security measures can increase service adoption and user confidence.
H5. 
Security risk of consumer-perceived risks will positively affect perceived value.
Product heterogeneity risk relates to the unpredictability and variability in product offerings, which can affect consumer expectations [44]. While traditionally viewed as a challenge, effectively managing product heterogeneity risk can enhance perceived value by providing consumers with clear information and appropriate expectations. This connection is supported by research showing that clear system information and reduced uncertainty can positively influence consumer evaluation of digital services [8,50].
H6. 
Product heterogeneity of consumer-perceived risks will positively affect perceived value.
The foundation of sustainable consumer–supplier relationships lies in the continuous delivery of value to consumers [51]. Research has consistently shown that perceived value serves as a critical determinant of consumer behavioral intentions and actual consumption patterns [52,53]. This connection is further strengthened by psychological factors that directly influence how individuals express their perceived value through various consumption behaviors [54].
H7. 
The perceived value of a delivery-service platform will have a significant positive (+) effect on consumer–brand relationships.
In the context of delivery-service platforms, perceived value manifests through multiple service benefits. These include enhanced convenience, reduction in time and effort costs, and the reliability of regular delivery services. When consumers experience these benefits positively, it leads to higher perceived value, which in turn positively influences their behavioral intentions [55]. This relationship aligns with Feng’s findings that both economic aspects and psychological costs (time and effort) significantly impact consumer intentions [56]. Furthermore, Hollebeek et al. have established that perceived value and benefits serve as fundamental prerequisites for specific consumer behaviors [39,57,58,59,60,61]. In the context of consumer–brand relationships, when consumers perceive high value from a service platform, they are more likely to develop stronger emotional and behavioral connections with the brand.
H8. 
Consumer–brand relationships will have a significant positive (+) effect on the formation of brand loyalty.
Fatemi et al. investigated the impact of ESG disclosures and performance on corporate value [62]. They found that strong ESG factors enhance corporate performance. According to Lo and Kwan, the market responds positively to corporate valuation when companies implement ESG practices [63]. Li et al. investigated whether excellent ESG disclosures affect corporate value and found a positive association between ESG disclosure and corporate value [64]. Transparency, accountability, and stakeholder trust also play roles in increasing corporate value. Therefore, a company’s ESG performance is thought to be involved in the formation of consumer–brand relationships and brand loyalty. In this study, consumer shopping attitude was adopted as a moderating variable. We predicted that shopping attitudes would have moderating effects when live-streaming characteristics and service quality affect corporate profits or consumer satisfaction. The following hypotheses reflect these considerations:
H9-1. 
A company’s ESG performance plays a moderating role in the relationship between a delivery-service platform’s perceived value and the formation of consumer–brand relationships.
H9-2. 
A company’s ESG performance plays a moderating role in the relationship between the formation of consumer–brand relationships and brand loyalty.

3.2. Research Model

The research model for this study was designed based on factors that influence perceived value, consumer–brand relationships, and brand loyalty by identifying sub-constructs of perceived benefits and risks based on the above discussions. Hypotheses 1 through 6 are proposed to help us explain how perceived benefits and risks affect perceived value. Hypotheses 7 and 8 are proposed to help us explain the relationship between perceived value, consumer–brand relationships, and brand loyalty. H9-1 and H9-2 are proposed to help us explain the moderating effects of ESG performance on the relationship between perceived value, consumer–brand relationships, and loyalty. The research model presented in Figure 1 outlines the study design.

4. Method

4.1. Operational Definitions and Measures

Perceived benefits reflect consumer recognition of a product’s or service’s superior performance as experienced by consumers when evaluating that produce or service [10,20]. Perceived risk is risk perceived by consumers in situations where various possible outcomes are not sufficiently predicted [27,28]. This study adopts product quality, product specialization, and delivery convenience as sub-constructs of perceived benefits and delivery risk, security risk, and product heterogeneity as sub-constructs of perceived risks. Three question items are related to product quality, product specialization, and delivery convenience. A total of nine question items are related to perceived benefits. Three question items each are related to delivery risk, security risk, and product heterogeneity. A total of nine question items are related to perceived risk.
Consumer–brand relationships reflect solidarity created as a result of equal partnerships between consumers and brands [34]. Three question items used in a previous study were modified and supplemented for the purposes of this study. Brand loyalty occurs when customers continue to purchase a given brand, even when the brand’s competitors offer similar products or services [64,65]. Three question items from a previous study related to brand loyalty were modified and supplemented for the purposes of this study. Questions regarding ESG activities were also composed of three items each. Accordingly, the questionnaire was modified for this study, and all items were measured on Likert-type 5-point scales, with responses ranging from definitely yes (5) to not at all (1). As shown in Appendix A, questionnaire items for this study, with operational definitions of the variables, were extracted from previous studies.

4.2. Data Collection

To accurately evaluate the services provided by delivery platform companies, a panel of consumers registered with marketing research companies was used to secure the validity and reliability of the survey. First, the most widely known and common delivery platform companies were selected. Consumer panelists were asked to choose whether to participate in the survey by text or e-mail. The questionnaire was edited to create an online survey, allowing consumer panelists to access the Internet and respond to the questionnaire based on their experience with delivery services. The survey was conducted from 5 March to 25 March 2024, and a total of 893 respondents participated. The questionnaire was composed of questions regarding perceived benefits, perceived risk, perceived value, consumer–brand relationships, brand loyalty, and ESG performance with respect to delivery companies’ platform-based services.
With the exception of demographic questions, 5-point Likert scales were used for all questions. Before conducting the questionnaire, a preliminary survey was conducted with 50 business administration and marketing students at the University of Seoul to ensure that the language in the questionnaire conveyed the appropriate meaning. To avoid common method variance in data collection, the method suggested by existing scholars was applied to the questionnaire. Survey subjects were selected through standard sampling processes to secure the representativeness of the sample. The data analysis survey period was one month. The subjects of the survey were consumers who had experience with delivery-service platforms. The anonymity of the respondents was guaranteed so that those who participated could avoid responding in a socially desirable or generous direction. Participants were told that their responses to the questionnaire were voluntary, and the purpose of the questionnaire was explained.
To avoid common method bias, a pilot questionnaire regarding perceived benefits and perceived risks of the independent variable, delivery-service platform performance, was conducted for one week. After that week, the dependent variables—perceived value, consumer–brand relationships, brand loyalty, and ESG activities—were investigated at different times. To test the research hypotheses, the SPSS statistical package and the structural equation analysis program SmartPLS 4.0 were used. For basic data analysis, frequency analysis was performed to determine the distribution of the demographic composition of respondents using the SPSS package. The means and standard deviations of the latent variables and question items were analyzed. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were used to determine the reliability of the main variables. Factor analysis was conducted to confirm the one-dimensionality and validity of the main variables. The study analyzed the moderating effects of ESG performance.

5. Results

5.1. Descriptive Statistics

As seen in Table 1, the sample sample consists of 401 men (54%) and 342 women (46%). The majority of respondents are between 30–39 years old (38.9%), followed by 40–49 years old (30.8%). Younger adults (20–29) make up 13.2%, and those over 50 represent 17.2%. More than half (52.4%) have a college degree, while 19.4% are college students. High school graduates account for 21.1%, and 7.1% have graduate degrees. Most respondents are employees (66.5%), followed by students (19.4%). Public office workers, self-employed individuals, and housekeepers make up smaller portions. The largest group earns above USD 5000 (36.5%) per month, followed by USD 4000–5000 (26.8%). Only 3.6% earn below USD 2000. Most people use delivery services 1–3 times (39.8%) or 3–5 times (33.5%) per month, while 12.2% use them more than eight times monthly

5.2. Measurement Validity

This study analyzed the relationship between each variable for perceived benefits and risk, perceived value, consumer–brand relationships, and brand loyalty using a PLS structural equation. This study used SmartPLS 4.0. SmartPLS 4.0 is a software application for the design of structural equation models (SEM) on a graphical user interface (GUI). These models can be measured through partial least squares (PLS) analysis. Before applying the PLS path method to test the study’s model, the factor loading values and cross-factor loading values for each factor were calculated, and the results of the PLS measurement model for each group are shown in Table 2 and Table 3. To assess common method bias, we employed Harman’s single-factor test [66,67], a technique well supported in prior research [68]. The test applied to our measurement variables revealed that common method variance was not a major issue, as indicated by the absence of a dominant factor and a common method variance of 48.3%. The model’s fit of measurement model was assessed using several indices: χ2 at 43,103.9 (df = 467, p = 0.001), GFI at 0.893, AGFI at 0.905, RMSEA at 0.069, NFI at 0.901, NNFI at 0.900, CFI at 0.956, and CMIN/DF at 0.01. These metrics suggest that the model fit is satisfactory or appropriate. Correlation analysis was performed to confirm discriminant validity between the variables used in this study. The results are shown in Table 2 and Table 3. The above analyses were used as indicators to judge the centralized and conceptual validity of each factor. As shown in Table 2 and Table 3, internal consistency was achieved by meeting the criteria for average variance extracted (AVE, 0.5 or more), composite reliability (CR, 0.7 or more), and reliability (Cronbach’s alpha, 0.6 or more). In Table 3, the squared correction coefficient (r2) and the square root of AVE values are shown. In this study, it was found that the AVE values of all latent variables were all suitable. It is judged that the measurement tool used in this study has convergent validity and discriminant validity. It can be confirmed that the measurement tool has discriminant validity.

5.3. Hypothesis Testing

After checking the model fit, we found it suitable or close to the standard in the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), where x2 is 9563.7(df = 373), p = 0.000, CFI = 0.951, GFI = 0.889, AGFI = 0.861, NFI = 0.905, NNFI = 0.905, and RMSEA = 0.062. To test the structural relationships in the model, the hypothesized causal paths were estimated. Five major hypotheses were supported. The hypothesized causal paths were estimated to test the causal relationships in the conceptual research model. Bootstrap analysis was performed 500 times using the smart PLS 4.0 program to test the statistical significance of each hypothesis with respect to its corresponding variables through path analysis for each group. The structural model represents the dependent relationship between the latent variables in the model and is used to represent correlations between the variables, representing standard errors and t-values of all coefficients, as well as the measurement coefficients. As shown in the hypothesis verification results reported in Table 4 and Figure 2, a research hypothesis was confirmed if its t-statistic was greater than ±1.96.
As seen in Figure 2, Table 4 and Table 5, the R2 values of variables such as perceived benefits and risks adopted to explain positive perceived value was high, at 24.7%. The R2 value of the consumer–brand relationship variable was 41.7%. In addition, the R2 value of consumer–brand relationships as an explanation of brand loyalty was 28.3%.
Regarding the research hypotheses, it was found that product quality and specialization had a significant effect on perceived value (estimate = 0.312, t = 7.867; estimate = 131, t = 3.098). In other words, users tend to believe that they benefit economically or save time and effort when the quality of products purchased from delivery platform companies is excellent and the products meet their expectations. On the other hand, delivery convenience had no statistically significant effects on perceived value (estimate = 0.049, t = 1.091). This indicates that the time and place of delivery are not important factors for users when weighing their economic benefits. Thus, H1 and H2 were supported, but H3 was not supported.
Second, delivery risk, security risk, and product heterogeneity were found to have significant effects (estimate = 0.261, t = 5.459; estimate = 0.224, t = 6.700; estimate = 0.185, t = 3.033, respectively). Time to delivery, product damage, product loss, exposure of personal information, and trust in delivery persons were found to be important factors in determining economic benefits for consumers. Thus, H4 through H6 were supported.
Third, perceived value was found to have significant effects on consumer–brand relationships (estimate = 0.421, t = 8.473), which in turn were found to have significant effects on brand loyalty (estimate = 0.585, t = 11.357). The stronger were respondents’ perceptions of the benefits of a delivery-service platform, the stronger was their attraction or attachment to the delivery-service company’s brand. Moreover, the stronger the attachment or attraction to the delivery-service platform’s corporate brand, the stronger the corporate brand loyalty. Thus, H7 and H8 were supported.
To assess the causal relationships in the conceptual research model, hypothesized causal paths were estimated. A multiple group analysis was conducted to examine the moderating effects of ESG activities. Based on the median ratings of ESG activities (median = 3.12), respondents were classified into low and high groups. The Chi-square (χ2) difference between the constrained and unconstrained models was examined in relation to the degrees of freedom to test the differential effects of ESG activities. As presented in Table 5, the results indicated that ESG performance was found to have a moderating effect when perceived value affects consumer–brand relationships (Δχ2 = 5.761, p < 0.05). ESG performance was also found to have a moderating effect when consumer–brand relationships affect brand loyalty (Δχ2 = 2.673, p < 0.05). Therefore, hypothesis H9 was supported. These findings indicate that the higher the ESG performance, the stronger the impact of consumer-perceived value on building relationships with brands. They show that higher ESG performance leads to consumer-perceived value having a greater influence on building brand loyalty. Companies can utilize ESG activities, not just as a fulfillment of social responsibility, but also as a strategic tool to strengthen brand value. High ESG performance acts as a catalyst that more effectively converts consumer-perceived value into brand relationships and loyalty. Corporate ESG investments can have a positive impact on building long-term consumer relationships. These results indicate that consumers are closely connected to a delivery-service platform company’s brand when the company improves relationships with partners, improves the working environment for its employees, and exhibits transparency in management, all of which are elements of ESG performance.

6. Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to examine how perceived benefits and risks affect the perceived value of delivery-service platforms, as well as to explore the moderating effects of ESG performance on the relationship between perceived value, consumer–brand relationships, and brand loyalty. The results indicate that product quality and product specialization positively affect perceived value but delivery convenience does not. The results indicate that perceived risk factors associated with delivery-service platforms, such as delivery risk, delivery security, and product heterogeneity, positively affect perceived value. It was found that respondents think the quality of a product should be guaranteed, and that products should be differentiated. In addition, it was found that respondents were concerned about delays or departures of delivery, information leakage, and delivery of the wrong products. The perceived value of a delivery-service platform is closely linked to the formation of consumer–brand relationships and brand loyalty.
Based on the above-reported results, we conclude that perceived value, formed through perceptions of perceived benefits or risks, is closely linked to the formation of consumer–brand relationships with a delivery-service platform. In addition, it was found that consumer–brand relationships formed in this way act as a decisive factor in the formation of corporate brand loyalty. We found that the ESG performance of delivery-service platform companies plays a moderating role in the relationship between perceived value, consumer–brand relationships, and brand loyalty. ESG performance was also found to play a controlling role in moderating between product quality and product specialization, which are factors related to perceived benefits and perceived value. Delivery-service platform users can be said to express high expected value only when the quality or variety of products is good or excellent when using delivery services, and the ESG performance of delivery-service platform companies was found to affect the formation of consumer–brand relationships and brand loyalty. When delivery-service platform users use delivery services, the perception that these services provide economic benefits or rewards for users is an important factor in forming consumer–brand relationships and brand loyalty.

7. Implications, Limitations, and Future Research Directions

The study presents significant implications for both academic research and practical business applications in the delivery-service platform industry. From an academic perspective, this research makes several notable contributions to the existing literature. First, it successfully develops and validates the sub-constructs of perceived benefits and risks specifically tailored to delivery-service platforms. This theoretical advancement provides a comprehensive framework for understanding how consumers evaluate and interact with these services. The study extends the value-based technology acceptance model by applying it to delivery-service platforms, thereby expanding our understanding of consumer behavior in this context.
Furthermore, the research makes substantial theoretical contributions by enhancing brand relationship theory in the O2O (online-to-offline) context. It provides valuable insights into how perceived benefits and value influence the formation of consumer–brand relationships in this emerging business model. The study also strengthens the theoretical foundation of omnichannel research by offering a detailed analysis of consumer behavior patterns in environments that integrate online and offline channels. Particularly noteworthy is the verification of ESG activities’ moderating effect on brand relationship formation, which adds a sustainable management perspective to the existing theoretical framework.
The methodological significance of this research lies in its systematic organization of constructs specific to delivery-service platform characteristics. The longitudinal confirmation of consumer perceptions and comparative analysis with existing delivery-service research provides a robust foundation for future studies in this field. This comprehensive approach allows for a deeper understanding of how consumer perceptions evolve over time and how they differ from those of traditional delivery services.
From a practical standpoint, the research provides valuable insights for delivery-service platform companies. The findings emphasize the critical importance of delivery-service convenience in enhancing perceived service value. Companies should focus on developing prompt and accurate delivery systems, user-friendly interfaces, and simplified ordering processes. The implementation of real-time delivery tracking services has been identified as a crucial element in enhancing customer satisfaction and perceived value.
The study highlights the significance of product quality management, diversity, and accurate delivery execution in building strong consumer–brand relationships. Companies must pay particular attention to maintaining consistent product quality and ensuring secure information management, as these factors directly influence brand loyalty formation. The research suggests that businesses should implement personalized push notifications based on customer location and shopping history, while also leveraging social media influencers to create engaging content that showcases in-store experiences.
A notable finding relates to the role of ESG (environmental, social, and governance) performance in regards to delivery-service companies. The research demonstrates that ESG activities serve as a crucial bridge in forming perceived value, consumer–brand relationships, and brand loyalty. Companies with clearly recognized ESG activities tend to experience enhanced corporate value and stronger brand evaluations. This suggests that service delivery companies should develop concrete measures for implementing ESG initiatives, such as customer loyalty programs, recommendation management systems, and customer participation expansion policies.
Regarding the increasingly competitive delivery platform market, the study emphasizes the need for differentiated service-marketing strategies for different customer segments. Companies should focus on developing customized services and implementing targeted marketing approaches. Regular monitoring of service quality, continuous improvement protocols, and the integration of customer feedback are essential for maintaining a competitive advantage.
The research also provides practical guidance for effectively implementing O2O services. Companies should focus on enhancing both utilitarian and hedonic benefits perceived by consumers to improve brand value. The development of integrated loyalty programs that combine online and offline purchase data can provide unified rewards and incentives. Additionally, the use of augmented reality features in mobile applications can significantly enhance the in-store shopping experience by providing interactive content and detailed product information.
These findings collectively suggest that success in the delivery-service platform industry requires a holistic approach that combines technological innovation, a customer-centric service design, and sustainable business practices. Companies must continuously evaluate and adjust their service levels while maintaining a strong focus on building lasting consumer–brand relationships through consistent, high-quality service delivery and meaningful ESG initiatives [69].
The current study reveals several distinctive findings that differentiate it from previous research. Most notably, unlike earlier studies that emphasized delivery-service innovation and quality, this research found that delivery convenience did not directly enhance perceived service value. Additionally, while previous research focused primarily on continuous use intention, this study uniquely examined the formation of brand loyalty through a complex loyalty loop process driven by consumer-perceived value. A significant new contribution is the identification of ESG performance as a crucial bridge in forming perceived value and consumer–brand relationships, an aspect not prominently featured in existing delivery-service literature. The study also breaks new ground in its comprehensive examination of omnichannel behavior, specifically, how integrated online–offline experiences shape consumer perceptions and brand relationships. Furthermore, this research developed a more sophisticated framework by combining specific perceived benefits and risks for delivery platforms, offering a more nuanced understanding compared to that of traditional delivery-service studies.
Despite the academic and practical significance of the results of this study, it is subject to several limitations. First, some limitations may be revealed in the sampling method used in this study because the standards of external validity may be insufficient. Therefore, it is considered essential to consider various sampling methods and apply them in a direction that helps to generalize the research results. In this study, service perceptions of delivery-platform companies were investigated by applying the value-based technology acceptance model. It is questionable whether the latent variables related to this model can comprehensively represent delivery services. Therefore, in subsequent studies, it is necessary to develop variables that match delivery-service platforms by comparing and analyzing existing studies. However, the companies covered in this study were limited to one specific market. Follow-up studies should be conducted using comparisons with competitors because each company has unique characteristics and management philosophies or marketing methods. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze consumer perceptions concretely and realistically using various measurement items. A valuable direction for future research would be to conduct a comparative analysis of brand loyalty between international and domestic brands. Such a study could provide insights into how the country of origin affects consumer loyalty patterns and potentially reveal market-specific dynamics in brand relationships.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.L., J.Y. and C.J.; methodology, M.L. and J.Y.; software validation, M.L., J.Y. and C.J.; formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation, and writing—original draft preparation, M.L., J.Y. and C.J.; project administration, C.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by a Kyonggi University Research Grant, 2024-003.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Because of the nature of this study, no formal approval of the institutional review board of the local ethics committee was required. Nonetheless, all subjects were informed about the study, and participation was fully on a voluntary basis. Participants were assured of the confidentiality and anonymity of the information associated with the surveys. The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Statistics of the construct items.
Table A1. Statistics of the construct items.
ConstructSurvey Measures
Product
Quality		I think the quality of products sold through the service I used is excellent
I am satisfied with the quality of products sold through the service I used
The quality of products sold through the service I used meets my expectations
Product
Specialization		The service specializes in selling new, diverse, and special products
The service offers a diverse range of products/foods
Through this service, I can compare and purchase products I want to find in one place
Delivery
Convenience		The service is convenient as I can receive ordered products quickly
The service is convenient as it delivers to my designated location
The service is convenient as it delivers accurately within the scheduled date and time
Delivery RiskI am concerned that the service may not deliver at my desired time
I am concerned about missing items in delivery when using the service
I am concerned about damage or loss of delivered items when using the service
Security
Risk		I am concerned about potential misuse of the shared entrance password provided for delivery
I have concerns about exposure of delivery location information provided when using the service
I feel anxious about delivery personnel when using the service
Product
Heterogeneity		The product quality of this service is not consistent
Products ordered through this service are not delivered with consistent quality
Product information provided by this service does not match the actual product quality
Perceived ValueThe service provides me benefits compared to the time I invested
The service provides more economic benefits compared to the costs I paid
The service provides me greater benefits compared to the effort I invested
Consumer Brand
Relationship		I feel strongly attracted to this delivery service company brand
I like this delivery service company brand the most
This delivery service company brand feels more special than other company brands
Brand LoyaltyI will consistently maintain interest in the delivery service company brand I experienced
I will continue to use the delivery service company brand I experienced
I intend to recommend the delivery service company brand I experienced to others
ESG
Activities		The delivery service company supports small/micro restaurants (through reduced commission fees, advertising costs, delivery fees)
The delivery service company actively pursues eco-friendly activities (reducing disposable items like cutlery, using reusable containers)
The delivery service company provides support for delivery personnel (insurance coverage)
The delivery service company discloses service/company information honestly and transparently

References

  1. Rampell, A. Why Online 2 Offline Commerce Is a Trillion-Dollar Opportunity; TechCrunch: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2010; Available online: https://techcrunch.com/2010/08/07/why-online2offline-commerce-is-a-trillion-dollar-opportunity/ (accessed on 15 November 2024).
  2. Madinga, N.; Blanckensee, J.; Longhurst, L.; Bundwini, N. The new normal: The adoption of food delivery apps. Eur. J. Manag. Stud. 2023, 28, 175–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Keeble, M.; Adams, J.; Bishop, T.R.; Burgoine, T. Socioeconomic inequalities in food outlet access through an online food delivery service in England: A cross-sectional descriptive analysis. Appl. Geogr. 2021, 133, 102498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Wang, Z.; He, S.Y. Impacts of food accessibility and built environment on on-demand food delivery usage. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2021, 100, 103017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Rombach, M.; Kartikasari, A.; Dean, D.L.; Suhartanto, D.; Chen, B.T. Determinants of customer loyalty to online food service delivery: Evidence from Indonesia, Taiwan, and New Zealand. J. Hosp. Manag. 2023, 32, 818–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zhang, F.; Ji, Y.; Lv, H.; Ma, X. Analysis of factors influencing delivery e-bikes’ red-light running behavior: A correlated mixed binary logit approach. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2021, 152, 105977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yao, P.; Li, Y. Why employees continue to use O2O food delivery services? Moderating role of sedentary behavior. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2024, 76, 103609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kim, H.W.; Chan, H.C.; Gupta, S. Value-based adoption of mobile internet: An empirical investigation. Decis. Support Syst. 2007, 43, 111–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Einav, L.; Dan, K.; Jonathan, L.; Sundaresan, L. Sales Taxes and Internet Commerce. Am. Econ. Rev. 2014, 114, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wang, F.J.; Hsiao, C.H.; Shih, W.H.; Chiu, W. Impacts of Price and Quality Perceptions on Individuals’ Intention to Participate in Marathon Events: Mediating Role of Perceived Value. SAGE Open 2023, 13, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tahar, A.; Riyadh, H.A.; Sofyani, H.; Purnomo, W.E. Perceived Ease of Use, Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Security and Intention to Use E-Filing: The Role of Technology Readiness. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2020, 7, 537–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lin, T.C.; Wu, S.; Hsu, J.S.C.; Chou, Y.C. The integration of value-based adoption and expectation-confirmation models: An example of IPTV continuance intention. Decis. Support Syst. 2012, 54, 63–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Avital, M. Constructing the Value of Information Systems Research. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2014, 34, 817–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Krogstie, J. Quality of Business Process Models. In Quality in Business Process Modeling; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  15. Moberg, C.R.; Cutler, B.D.; Gross, A.; Speh, T.W. Identifying antecedents of information exchange within supply chains. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2002, 32, 755–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Alotaibi, R.S.; Alshahrani, S.M. An extended DeLone and McLean’s model to determine the success factors of e-learning platform. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 2022, 8, e876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Kleijnen, M.; De Ruyter, K.; Wetzels, M. An assessment of value creation in mobile service delivery and the moderating role of time consciousness. J. Retail. 2007, 83, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wang, H.Y.; Wang, S.H. Predicting mobile hotel reservation adoption: Insight from a perceived value standpoint. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2010, 29, 598–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kaciak, E.; Cullen, W. Analysis of Means-End Chain Data in Marketing Research. J. Target. Meas. Anal. Mark. 2006, 15, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chen, Z.; Dubinsky, A.J. A conceptual model of perceived customer value in e-commerce: A preliminary investigation. Psychol. Mark. 2003, 20, 323–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Abdullah, A. An Overview of Mobile Payments, Fintech, and Digital Wallet in Saudi Arabia; IEEE: Piscataway Township, NJ, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  22. Auad, L.I.; Ginani, V.C.; Stedefeldt, E.; Nakano, E.Y.; Nunes, A.C.S.; Zandonadi, R.P. Food safety knowledge, attitudes, and practices of Brazilian food truck food handlers. Nutrients 2019, 11, 1784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Choi, J.; Lee, A.; Ok, C. The effects of consumers’ perceived risk and benefit on attitude and behavioral intention: A study of street food. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2013, 30, 222–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Yoon, B.; Chung, Y. Consumer Attitude and Visit Intention toward Food-Trucks: Targeting Millennials. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 2017, 21, 187–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Maciejewski, G. The Meaning of Perceived Risk in Purchasing Decisions of the Polish Customers. Anal. Stiint. Univ. Alexandru Ioan Cuza Iasi 2011, 58, 281–304. [Google Scholar]
  26. Priyono, A. Analysis of the influence of trust and risk in the acceptance of Go-Pay electronic wallet technology. J. Bus. Strategy 2017, 21, 88–106. [Google Scholar]
  27. Bauer, R.A. Consumer behavior as risk taking. In Proceedings of the 43rd National Conference of the American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, USA, 15–17 June 1960. [Google Scholar]
  28. Zhang, X.; Yu, X. The Impact of Perceived Risk on Consumers’ Cross-Platform Buying Behavior. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 592246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Roig, J.C.F.; Garcia, J.S.; Tena, M.A.M.; Monzonis, J.L. Customer perceived value in banking services. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2006, 24, 266–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Surücü, O.; Oztürk, Y.; Okumus, F.; Bilgihan, A. Brand awareness, image, physical quality and employee behavior as building blocks of customer-based brand equity: Consequences in the hotel context. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2019, 40, 114–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wu, W.Y.; Do, T.Y.; Nguyen, P.T.; Anridho, N.; Vu, M.Q. An Integrated Framework of Customer-based Brand Equity and Theory of Planned Behavior: A Meta-Analysis Approach. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2020, 7, 371–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kim, A.J.; Ko, E. Do social media marketing activities enhance customer equity? An empirical study of luxury fashion brand. J. Bus. Res. 2012, 65, 1480–1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kettinger, W.J.; Park, S.H.; Smith, J. Understanding the consequences of information systems service quality on IS service reuse. Inf. Manag. 2009, 46, 335–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Alvarez, C.; Fournier, S. Consumers’ relationships with brands. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2016, 10, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. McAlexander, J.H.; Schouten, J.W.; Koenig, H.F. Building Brand Community. J. Mark. 2002, 66, 38–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Parvatiyar, A.; Sheth, J.N. Customer Relationship Management: Emerging Practice, Process, and Discipline. J. Econ. Soc. Res. 2001, 3, 1–34. [Google Scholar]
  37. Dowling, G. Customer Relationship Management: In B2C Markets, Often Less is More. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2002, 44, 87–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Smit, E.; Bronner, F.; Tolboom, M. Brand Relationship Quality and Its Value for Personal Contact. J. Bus. Res. 2007, 60, 627–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hollebeek, L.D.; Srivastava, R.K.; Chen, T. SD logic-informed customer Brand engagement: Integrative framework, revised fundamental propositions, and application to CRM. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2016, 47, 161–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rather, R.A.; Tehseen, S.; Parrey, S.H. Promoting customer brand engagement and brand loyalty through customer brand identification and value congruity. Span. J. Mark. 2018, 22, 321–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Barnett, M.L.; Salomon, R.M. Does It Pay to Be Really Good? Addressing the Shape of the Relationship between Social and Financial Performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 2012, 33, 1304–1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ahmad, R.; Ayob, A.; Saunah, Z.; Probohudono, A. The Influence of Environmental, Social and Governance Reporting on Firm Value: Malaysian Evidence. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2021, 11, 1058–1080. [Google Scholar]
  43. Greenwald, J. ESG and Earnings Performance. ASSET4: Thomson Reuters Study. 2020. Available online: https://www.thomsonreuters.com/content/dam/openweb/documents/pdf/tr-com-financial/case-study/esg-and-earnings-performance.pdf (accessed on 30 September 2024).
  44. Wang, L.; Watanabe, T.; Wakui, K. Acceptance of Main Power Generation Sources among Japan’s Undergraduate Students: The Roles of Knowledge, Experience, Trust, and Perceived risk and Benefit. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Singh, D.; Sinha, N. How perceived trust mediates merchant’s intention to use a mobile wallet technology. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 52, 101894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Chen, S.C.; Lin, C.P. Understanding the effect of social media marketing activities: The mediation of social identification, perceived value, and satisfaction. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 140, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Masoud, E.Y. The Effect of Perceived Risk on Online Shopping in Jordan. Eur. J. Bus. Manag. 2013, 5, 76–87. [Google Scholar]
  48. Ilhamalimy, R.R.; Ali, H. Model perceived risk and trust: E-WOM and purchase intention (the role OF trust mediating IN online shopping IN shopee Indonesia). Dinasti Int. J. Digit. Bus. Manag. 2021, 2, 204–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lee, M.C. Factors influencing the adoption of internet banking: An integration of TAM and TPB with perceived risk and perceived benefit. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2009, 8, 130–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Slade, E.L.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Piercy, N.C.; Williams, M.D. Modeling consumers’ adoption intentions of remote mobile payments in the United Kingdom: Extending UTAUT with innovativeness, risk, and trust. Psychol. Mark. 2015, 32, 860–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Eggert, A.; Ulaga, W.; Schultz, F. Value creation in the relationship life cycle: A quasi-longitudinal analysis. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2006, 35, 20–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Mason, M.C.; Oduro, S.; Umar, R.M.; Zamparo, G. Effect of consumption values on consumer behavior: A Meta-analysis. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2023, 41, 923–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Eibel-Spanyi, K.; Hofmeister, Á. The impact of values on consumer behaviour. Int. J. Econ. Bus. Res. 2013, 5, 400–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Willis, L.; Lee, E.; Reynolds, K.J.; Klik, K.A. The Theory of Planned Behavior and the Social Identity Approach: A New Look at Group Processes and Social Norms in the Context of Student Binge Drinking. Eur. J. Psychol. 2020, 16, 357–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Roy, S.K.; Shekhar, V.; Lassar, W.M.; Chen, T. Customer engagement behaviors: The role of service convenience, fairness and quality. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 44, 293–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Feng, S. The Effects of Price Context and Prior Product Knowledge on Consumers’ Product Evaluations. Int. J. Bus. Adm. 2024, 15, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hapsari, R.; Clemes, M.; Dean, D. The impact of service quality, customer engagement and selected marketing constructs on airline passenger loyalty. Int. J. Qual. Serv. Sci. 2017, 9, 21–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Islam, J.U.; Hollebeek, L.D.; Rahman, Z.; Khan, I.; Rasool, A. Customer engagement in the service context: An empirical investigation of the construct, its antecedents and consequences. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 50, 277–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sierra, J.; Mcquitty, S. Service providers and customers: Social exchange theory and service loyalty. J. Serv. Mark. 2005, 19, 392–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lee, Y.K.; Kim, S.; Kim, S.Y. The impact of internal branding on employee engagement and outcome variables in the hotel industry. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2014, 19, 1359–1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Van, D.J.; Mende, M.; Noble, S.M.; Hulland, J.; Ostrom, A.L.; Grewal, D.; Petersen, J.A. Domo arigato Mr. Roboto: Emergence of automated social presence in organizational frontlines and customers’ service experiences. J. Serv. Res. 2017, 20, 43–58. [Google Scholar]
  62. Fatemi, A.; Glaum, M.; Kaiser, S. ESG Performance and Firm Value: The Moderating Role of Disclosure. Glob. Financ. J. 2017, 40, 45–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lo, K.Y.; Kwan, C.L. The Effect of Environmental, Social, Governance and Sustainability Initiatives on Stock Value: Examining Market Response to Initiatives Undertaken by Listed Companies. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2017, 24, 606–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Li, J.; Guo, F.; Xu, J.; Yu, Z. What influences consumers’ intention to purchase innovative products: Evidence from China. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 838244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Khoo, K.L. A study of service quality, corporate image, customer satisfaction, revisit intention and word-of-mouth: Evidence from the KTV industry. PSU Res. Rev. 2022, 6, 105–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Jin, C.H. The moderating effect of social capital and cosmopolitanism on marketing capabilities: A comparison of Chinese and Korean companies. Chin. Manag. Stud. 2015, 9, 441–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Liang, C.; Alvarez, A.; Juang, L.; Liang, M. The Role of Coping in the relationship between perceived racism and racism-related stress for Asian Americans: Gender differences. J. Couns. Psychol. 2007, 54, 132–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Sung, E.; Chung, W.Y.; Lee, D. Factors that affect consumer trust in product quality: A focus on online reviews and shopping platforms. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2023, 10, 766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 10294 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual research model.
Figure 1. Conceptual research model.
Sustainability 16 10294 g001
Sustainability 16 10294 g002
Figure 2. Path analysis.
Figure 2. Path analysis.
Sustainability 16 10294 g002
Table 1. Demographic profiles.
Table 1. Demographic profiles.
Index (n = 743)Frequency%
SexMale40154
Female34246
Age (years)20–29 9813.2
30–3928938.9
40–4922930.8
Over 50 12717.2
Education
level		High school degree15721.1
College students14419.4
College degree38952.4
Graduate school degree 537.1
OccupationEmployee49466.5
Public office worker476.3
Self-employed486.5
Student14419.4
Housekeeper101.3
Monthly
income
in USD		Below USD 2000273.6
2000~30009913.3
3000~400014719.8
4000~500019926.8
Above USD 500027136.5
Monthly delivery-service usage, averageOne time7510.1
1–3 29639.8
3–524933.5
5–8324.3
Over eight times9112.2
Table 2. Factor analysis.
Table 2. Factor analysis.
VariablesItemsCommunalityFactor
Loadings		Composite
Reliability		Cronbach’s
Alpha		AVE
Product
Quality		Q10.8590.8050.9360.9050.840
Q20.8470.822
Q30.8010.778
Product
Specialization		SP10.7510.7370.8790.7780.688
SP20.7590.589
SP30.7700.672
Delivery
Convenience		DC10.7510.7950.9110.9010.834
DC20.8300.826
DC30.8290.775
Delivery RiskDR10.6310.6710.6920.7370.566
DR20.8040.724
DR30.8340.833
Security
Risk		SR10.7840.8470.8630.7430.617
SR20.7840.838
SR30.7550.551
Product
Heterogeneity		PH10.8630.8540.8180.8910.750
PH20.8890.830
PH30.8640.852
Perceived ValuePV10.7190.6360.7740.7720.686
PV20.7630.777
PV30.7870.844
Consumer Brand
Relationship		CR10.7200.8260.8900.8840.812
CR20.7740.828
CR30.8720.811
Brand LoyaltyBL10.8450.8060.8430.8430.762
BL20.8520.769
BL30.8630.865
ESG
Activities		EA10.7780.6820.7740.6870.590
EA20.8320.756
EA30.8760.673
EA40.8980.612
Table 3. Correlation coefficients and AVE.
Table 3. Correlation coefficients and AVE.
Factor123456789
PQ0.706
PS0.2070.473
DC0.2920.3460.696
DR0.1240.0000.1020.320
SR0.0530.0020.0230.0840.381
PH0.1440.0400.1100.0770.1140.563
PV0.0780.0710.0270.0070.0290.0070.471
CBR0.0680.0400.0260.0000.0010.1000.1140.659
BL0.0350.0200.0310.0150.0010.0820.0320.2510.581
ESG0.0010.0250.0020.0460.0030.0300.0740.1810.0290.348
Note: the square root of AVE values on the diagonal, AVE: average variance extracted; PQ: product quality; PS: product specialization; DC: delivery convenience; DR: delivery risk; SR: security risk; PH: product heterogeneity; PV: perceived value; CBR: consumer–brand relationship; BL: brand loyalty; ESG: environment, social, governance.
Table 4. Results of path analysis.
Table 4. Results of path analysis.
HPathsEstimateSEt-Valuep-Value
H1Product Quality → Perceived Value0.3120.0407.8670.000
H2Specialization → Perceived Value0.1310.0423.0980.002
H3Convenience → Perceived Value0.0490.0451.0910.275
H4Delivery Risk → Perceived Value0.2610.0485.4590.002
H5Security Risk → Perceived Value0.2240.0336.7000.000
H6Heterogeneity → Perceived Value0.1850.0613.0330.000
H7Perceived Value → CBR0.4210.0508.4730.000
H8CBR → BL0.5850.05211.3570.000
Note: SE: standard error; CBR: consumer–brand relationship; BL: brand loyalty.
Table 5. Results of moderating effect of ESG activities.
Table 5. Results of moderating effect of ESG activities.
HMain EffectLow ESGHigh ESGΔχ2 (Δdf = 1)p-Value
H9-1Perceive Value → Consumer–Brand Relationship0.1310.4695.761<0.005
H9-2Consumer–Brand Relationship → Brand Loyalty0.2530.5462.673<0.005
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Liang, M.; Yu, J.; Jin, C. Effects of Perceived Benefits, Value, and Relationships of Brands in an Online-to-Offline Context: Moderating Effect of ESG Activities. Sustainability 2024, 16, 10294. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162310294

AMA Style

Liang M, Yu J, Jin C. Effects of Perceived Benefits, Value, and Relationships of Brands in an Online-to-Offline Context: Moderating Effect of ESG Activities. Sustainability. 2024; 16(23):10294. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162310294

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liang, Meili, Jianwei Yu, and Changhyun Jin. 2024. "Effects of Perceived Benefits, Value, and Relationships of Brands in an Online-to-Offline Context: Moderating Effect of ESG Activities" Sustainability 16, no. 23: 10294. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162310294

APA Style

Liang, M., Yu, J., & Jin, C. (2024). Effects of Perceived Benefits, Value, and Relationships of Brands in an Online-to-Offline Context: Moderating Effect of ESG Activities. Sustainability, 16(23), 10294. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162310294

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop