Factors behind the Consumer Acceptance of Sustainable Business Models in Pandemic Times
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Consumer Acceptance of Sustainable Business Models
2.1. Technological Models
2.2. Social Models
2.3. Organizational Models
3. Methods and Materials
3.1. Research Model
3.2. Survey Design
- Gender: female 378 (61%), male 244 (39%);
- Budapest 124 (20%), outside of Budapest, the capital city: 498 (80%);
- Level of studies: Bachelor’s 429 (69%), Master’s 53 (8%), Postgraduate 140 (23%);
- Field of studies: business management and economics 398 (64%), (other) social studies 153 (25%), other (mainly engineers) 71 (11%).
4. Results of the Survey
- Component 1: adoption of sharing economy models is the strongest consumer component (linked to the social aspect of SBMs);
- Component 2: digitalization (linked to scale-up solutions—organizational models—of SBMs).
- Components 3–7 describe different aspects of environmental and social responsibility and stewardship and can be linked to the social archetype of SBMs;
- Component 8 is related to investing in green technology (linked to the technological archetype of SBMs, renewable technology, and natural processes);
- Components 9–11 capture value changes and frugality aspects (again, related to the social archetype of SBMs);
- Component 12 is linked to stewardship (a subcategory of social business models);
- Components 13 and 14 are linked to participating in the circular economy (a subcategory of technological SBMs);
- Components 15 and 16 again are linked to value changes happening during the crisis.
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Cohen, M.J. Introduction to the special section: Innovative perspectives on systems of sustainable consumption and production. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2019, 15, 104–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boruchowitch, F.; Fritz, M.M.C. Who in the firm can create sustainable value and for whom? A single case-study on sustainable procurement and supply chain stakeholders. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 363, 132619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Willer, C.; Johns, M. Reduction of GHG emissions from ships: Evaluation of inter-company R&D cooperation models in the case of Hapag-Lloyd. J. Shipp. Trade 2021, 6, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Snihura, Y.; Lamine, W.; Wright, M. Educating engineers to develop new business models: Exploiting entrepreneurial opportunities in technology-based firms. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 164, 119518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cornejo-Cañamares, M.; Medrano, N.; Olarte-Pascual, C. Environmental objectives and non-technological innovation in Spanish manufacturing SMEs. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 296, 126445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yousaf, Z.; Mihai, D.; Tanveer, U.; Brutu, M.; Toma, S.; Zahid, S.M. Organizational Innovativeness in the Circular Economy: The Interplay of Innovation Networks, Frugal Innovation, and Organizational Readiness. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nassani, A.A.; Sinisi, C.; Mihai, D.; Paunescu, L.; Yousaf, Z.; Haffar, M. Towards the Achievement of Frugal Innovation: Exploring Major Antecedents among SMEs. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rey-Merchán, M.d.C.; López-Arquillos, A.; Pires Rosa, M. Carpooling Systems for Commuting among Teachers: An Expert Panel Analysis of Their Barriers and Incentives. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 8533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grey, S.; Druckman, A.; Sadhukhan, J.; James, K. Reducing the Environmental Impact of Clothing: An Exploration of the Potential of Alternative Business Models. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bocken, N.P.B.; Short, S.W. Unsustainable business models—Recognising and resolving institutionalised social and environmental harm. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 312, 127828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fein, N. Factors Influencing the Purchase Intention for Recycled Products: Integrating Perceived Risk into Value-Belief-Norm Theory. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ketelsen, M.; Janssen, M.; Hamm, U. Consumers’ response to environmentally-friendly food packaging-a systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 254, 120123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuah, A.T.; Wang, P. Circular economy and consumer acceptance: An exploratory study in East and Southeast Asia. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 247, 119097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mykkänen, J.; Repo, P. Consumer perspectives on arranging circular economy in Finland. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2021, 17, 349–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakar, N.A.; Rosbi, S. Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) to Equity Market and Currency Exchange Rate. IOSR J. Econ. Financ. 2020, 11, 22–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burlea-Schiopoiu, A.; Ogarca, F.R.; Barbu, C.M.; Craciun, L.; Baloi, I.C.; Mihai, L.C. The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on food waste behaviour of young people. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 294, 126333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ha, S.; Childs, M.; Sneed, C.T.; Berry, A. Consumer Sustainable Shopping Practices for Small Business during COVID-19. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teresiene, D.; Keliuotyte-Staniuleniene, G.; Liao, Y.; Kanapickiene, R.; Pu, R.; Hu, S.; Yue, X.-G. The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Consumer and Business Confidence Indicators. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2021, 14, 159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hossain, M. The effect of the Covid-19 on sharing economy activities. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 280, 124782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Principato, L.; Secondi, L.; Cicatiello, C.; Mattia, G. Caring more about food: The unexpected positive effect of the Covid-19 lockdown on household food management and waste. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 2020, 82, 100953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harba, J.-N.; Tigu, G.; Davidescu, A.A. Exploring Consumer Emotions in Pre-Pandemic and Pandemic Times. A Sentiment Analysis of Perceptions in the Fine-Dining Restaurant Industry in Bucharest, Romania. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 13300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pirc Barčić, A.; Kitek Kuzman, M.; Vergot, T.; Grošelj, P. Monitoring Consumer Purchasing Behavior for Wood Furniture before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Forests 2021, 12, 873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, B.; Li, Y. Consumers’ Intention to Bring a Reusable Bag for Shopping in China: Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaltegger, S.; Hansen, G.E.; Lüdeke-Freund, F. Business models for Sustainability: Origins, Present Research, and Future Avenues. Organ. Environ. 2016, 29, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bocken, N.M.; Short, S.W.; Rana, P.; Evans, S. A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 42–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hernández-Chea, R.; Vimalnath, P.; Bocken, N.; Tietze, F.; Eppinger, E. Integrating Intellectual Property and Sustainable Business Models: The SBM-IP Canvas. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hernández-Chea, R.; Jain, A.; Bocken, N.M.P.; Gurtoo, A. The Business Model in Sustainability Transitions: A Conceptualization. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poortinga, W.; Steg, L.; Vlek, C.; Wiersma, G. Household preferences for energy-saving measures: A conjoint analysis. J. Econ. Psychol. 2003, 24, 49–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hua, L.; Wang, S. Antecedents of consumers’ intention to purchase energy-efficient appliances. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mert, W.; Suschek-Berger, J.; Tritthart, W. Consumer Acceptance of Smart Appliances. Smart Domestic Appliances in Sustainable Energy Systems (Smart-A). 2008. Available online: https://www.ifz.at/sites/default/files/2021-02/D5_5-Consumer%20acceptance.pdf (accessed on 14 May 2022).
- Chawla, Y.; Kowalska-Pyzalska, A. Public awareness and consumer acceptance of smart meters among Polish social media users. Energies 2019, 12, 2759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Coelho, P.M.; Corona, B.; ten Klooster, R.; Worrell, E. Sustainability of reusable packaging-Current situation and trends. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 6, 100037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bressanelli, G.; Saccani, N.; Perona, M. Investigating Business Potential and Users’ Acceptance of Circular Economy: A Survey and an Evaluation Model. Sustainability 2022, 14, 609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Denac, M.; Obrecht, M.; Radonjič, G. Current and potential ecodesign integration in small and medium enterprises: Construction and related industries. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2018, 27, 825–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Weelden, E.; Mugge, R.; Bakker, C. Paving the way towards circular consumption: Exploring consumer acceptance of refurbished mobile phones in the Dutch market. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 113, 743–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Elzinga, R.; Reike, D.; Negro, S.O.; Boon, W.P. Consumer acceptance of circular business models. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 254, 119988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, N.L.; Woo, H.; Ramkumar, B. The role of product history in consumer response to online second-hand clothing retail service based on circular fashion. J. Retail. Consum. 2021, 60, 102457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toft, M.B.; Schuitema, G.; Thogersen, J. Responsible technology acceptance: Model development and application to consumer acceptance of Smart Grid technology. Appl. Energy 2014, 134, 392–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sardianou, E.; Genoudi, P. Which factors affect the willingness of consumers to adopt renewable energies? Renew. Energy 2013, 57, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Irfan, M.; Hao, Y.; Ikram, M.; Wu, H.; Akram, R.; Rauf, A. Assessment of the public acceptance and utilization of renewable energy in Pakistan. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 312–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hallin, A.; Karrbom-Gustavsson, T.; Dobers, P. Transition towards and of sustainability-Understanding sustainability as performative. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 30, 1948–1957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, G.; So, K.K.F.; Hudson, S. Inside the sharing economy. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. 2017, 29, 2218–2239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lutz, C.; Newlands, G. Consumer segmentation within the sharing economy: The case of Airbnb. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 88, 187–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guttentag, D.; Smith, S.; Potwarka, L.; Havitz, M. Why tourists choose Airbnb: A motivation-based segmentation study. J. Travel. Res. 2018, 57, 342–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ter Huurne, M.; Ronteltap, A.; Corten, R.; Buskens, V. Antecedents of trust in the sharing economy: A systematic review. J. Consum. Behav. 2017, 16, 485–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Solér, C.; Koroschetz, B.; Salminen, E. An infrastructural perspective on sustainable consumption-activating and obligating sustainable consumption through infrastructures. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 243, 118601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borg, D.; Mont, O.; Schoonover, H. Consumer Acceptance and Value in Use-Oriented Product-Service Systems: Lessons from Swedish Consumer Goods Companies. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thogersen, J. Spillover processes in the development of a sustainable consumption pattern. J. Econ. Psychol. 1999, 20, 53–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Csutora, M. One more awareness gap? The behaviour-impact gap problem. J. Consum. Policy 2012, 35, 145–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frick, V.; Matthies, E.; Thøgersen, J.; Santarius, T. Do online environments promote sufficiency or overconsumption? Online advertisement and social media effects on clothing, digital devices, and air travel consumption. J. Consum. Behav. 2021, 20, 288–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palm, J.; Eidenskog, M.; Luthander, R. Sufficiency, change, and flexibility: Critically examining the energy consumption profiles of solar PV prosumers in Sweden. Energy. Res. Soc. Sci 2018, 39, 12–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnes, L.; Lea-Greenwood, G.; Watson, M.Z.; Yan, R.N. An exploratory study of the decision processes of fast versus slow fashion consumers. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 2013, 17, 141–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nováková, P.; Hák, T.; Janoušková, S. An Analysis of Food Waste in Czech Households-A Contribution to the International Reporting Effort. Foods 2021, 10, 875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Spangenberg, J.H.; Lorek, S. Sufficiency and consumer behaviour: From theory to policy. Energ. Policy 2019, 129, 1070–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zsóka, Á.N. Consistency and “awareness gaps” in the environmental behaviour of Hungarian companies. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 16, 322–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsai, J.M.; Hung, S.W. Yang TT. In pursuit of goodwill? The cross-level effects of social enterprise consumer behaviors. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 109, 350–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farhoud, M.; Shah, S.; Stenholm, P.; Kibler, E.; Renko, M.; Terjesen, S. Social enterprise crowdfunding in an acute crisis. J. Bus. Ventur. 2021, 15, e00211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Tan, C.D.; Sun, J.; Yang, Z. Why do people patronize donation-based crowdfunding platforms? An activity perspective of critical success factors. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 112, 106470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zwart, T.A.; Wertheim-Heck, S. Retailing local food through supermarkets: Cases from Belgium and the Netherlands. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 300, 126948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elghannam, A.; Mesias, F.J.; Escribano, M.; Fouad, L.; Horrillo, A.; Escribano, A.J. Consumers’ perspectives on alternative short food supply chains based on social media. Foods 2020, 9, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Driediger, F.; Bhatiasevi, V. Online grocery shopping in Thailand: Consumer acceptance and usage behavior. J. Retail. Consum. 2019, 48, 224–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, C.C.; Seong, L.C.; Khin, A. Factors affecting the consumer acceptance towards fintech products and services in Malaysia. Int. J. Asian Soc. Sci. 2019, 9, 59–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakar, N.A.; Rosbi, S.; Hashim, H.; Arshad, N.C. Factors Influencing Students Intention to Choose Career of Halal Food Industry in Malaysia using Theory of Planned Behavior. Int. J. Manag. Sci. Bus. Adm. 2021, 8, 50–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Obrenovic, B.; Du, J.; Godinić, D.; Tsoy, D. Personality trait of conscientiousness impact on tacit knowledge sharing: The mediating effect of eagerness and subjective norm. J. Know. Man. 2021, 26, 1124–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karampour, S.; Bojarpour, M. An implementation of TPB method for learning important factors influencing knowledge sharing. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2012, 2, 2293–2300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, E.; Hsiao, A.; Gao, J.; Vada, S. Inspiring good soldiers cross-culturally through the lens of the theory of planned behavior—Which works best, norms or behavioral control? J. Hosp. Tour. 2020, 45, 99–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmmadi, P.; Rahimian, M.; Movahed, R.G. Theory of planned behavior to predict consumer behavior in using products irrigated with purified wastewater in Iran consumer. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 296, 126359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aboelmaged, M. E-waste recycling behaviour: An integration of recycling habits into the theory of planned behaviour. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 124182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Csutora, M.; Zsóka, Á. Maximizing the efficiency of greenhouse gas related consumer policy. J. Consum. Policy 2011, 34, 67–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Connor, E.L.; Sims, L.; White, K.M. Ethical food choices: Examining people’s Fair Trade purchasing decisions. Food. Qual. Prefer. 2017, 60, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ateş, H. Understanding Students’ and Science Educators’ Eco-Labeled Food Purchase Behaviors. Ecol. Food. Nutr. 2021, 60, 454–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dangelico, R.M.; Nonino, F.; Pompei, A. Which are the determinants of green purchase behaviour? A study of Italian consumers. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 30, 2600–2620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panico, T.; Caracciolo, F.; Furno, M. Analysing the consumer purchasing behaviour for certified wood products in Italy. For. Policy Econ. 2022, 136, 102670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amatuni, L.; Ottelin, J.; Steubing, B.; Mogollón, J.M. Does car sharing reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Assessing the modal shift and lifetime shift rebound effects from a life cycle perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 266, 121869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, D.; Park, J. The relationship between a charity crowdfunding project’s contents and donors’ participation. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 106, 261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Medeiros, J.F.; Marcon, A.; Ribeiro, J.L.D.; D’Agostin, J.Q.A. Consumer emotions and collaborative consumption: The effect of COVID-19 on the adoption of use-oriented product-service systems. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 1569–1588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, G.A. Framing a model for green buying behavior of Indian consumers: From the lenses of the theory of planned behavior. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 295, 126487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Nguyen, D.; Pham, G.H.; Nguyen, D.N. Impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on perceptions and behaviors of university students in Vietnam. Data Brief 2021, 31, 105880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pícha, K.; Navrátil, J. The factors of Lifestyle of Health and Sustainability influencing pro-environmental buying behavior. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 234, 233–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Groupings | Archetypes | Description |
---|---|---|
Technological models | Maximize material and energy efficiency | Improving products and processes to generate less waste and fewer emissions with respect to products that deliver similar functionalities |
Close resource loops | Transforming waste into valuable inputs, closing the loops of the renewable resources and/or non-renewable materials cycles | |
Substitute with renewables and natural processes | Modifying products to include renewable (non-finite) resources, using environmentally friendly materials, and developing renewable energy solutions | |
Social models | Deliver functionality rather than ownership | Delivering functionality through pay-per-use rather than product ownership, allowing reduction in resource consumption and enhanced efficiency in the use and durability of products |
Adopt a stewardship role | Ensuring the long-term health and well-being of all stakeholders through the manufacture and provision of products/services, tackling sustainability along the supply chain, community development, and employee welfare | |
Encourage sufficiency | Radically reducing overconsumption by improving product durability and longevity and implementing activities to educate consumers and enable second-hand consumption | |
Organizational models | Repurpose for society/environment | Maximizing the social and environmental benefits of full integration of the firm with all stakeholders and therefore aiming to drive global economic change |
Develop sustainable scale-up solutions | Developing sustainability solutions on a large scale for multinationals, which include franchising, licensing, and collaborative models |
Selected References | Factors Influencing SBM Acceptance | Link to the TPB Model | |
---|---|---|---|
Technological models | Energy-saving options [28,70] | investment is more acceptable than behavioral changes | behavioral attitude toward sacrificing money versus comfort |
Energy-efficient appliances [29]; circular economy [36] | environmental consciousness | subjective norms | |
Circular economy, reusable packaging business models [32] | consumer reuse behavior | attitude–behavior gap | |
Reusable packaging [30,32] | comfort, convenience, financial benefits | attitude toward sacrificing money versus comfort | |
Smart metering [31] | public awareness | aspect of social norms | |
Food packaging [12], circular consumption [35] | lack of knowledge | aspect of perceived behavioral control | |
Smart grids, circular economy [13,38] | lack of interest (financial or convenience), benefits such as quality, convenience | attitude toward sacrificing money versus comfort, perceived benefits | |
Eco-design and reusable packaging [32,35] | financial or functional benefits | functional values: perceived benefits or cost–benefit ratio | |
Circular consumption [35] | risks versus trust | attitude towards risk taking | |
Circular economy [36] | consumer habits | habits | |
Renewable energy [37] | income, cost | perceived behavioral control, attitude towards sacrificing money versus comfort | |
Social models | Ride sharing [42] | learning cost, self-efficacy | attitude towards risk taking |
Accommodation sharing [43] | behavioral intentions, demographic factors | attitude towards risk taking | |
Slow fashion and sharing economy [37,44] | pragmatic advances | perceived benefits | |
Sharing economy [45,46] | trust, infrastructure | attitude towards persons and platforms | |
Waste prevention and recycling norms [48] | environmental responsibility | subjective and social norm | |
Behavior change in heating energy [49] | income | perceived behavioral control | |
Sufficiency in clothing, travel [50,52] | sufficiency as a social norm | social norms | |
Sufficiency in presumption [51] | attitudes towards sufficiency | attitude towards sacrificing comfort for well-being | |
Sufficiency [52] | factors inhibiting sufficiency | perceived behavioral control | |
Fair trade [71] | costs, moral norms, self-identity | subjective norms, moral norms | |
Pro-environmental behavior [72] | self-identity, personal norms | subjective norm | |
Green purchasing [73] | value for money, personal norms, materialism, green practices, consumer innovativeness | perceived benefits, subjective norms, habits, attitude towards changing behavior | |
Purchasing certified wood products [74] | ecolabel knowledge, general environmental attitudes, attitudes toward environmental certification, trust in certification | attitudes, perceived behavioral control | |
Car sharing [75] | trendiness | subjective norms | |
Organizational models | Social enterprise [56,76] | perceived behavioral control, attitudes | perceived behavioral control, attitudes |
Crowdfunding [57] | clear communication | perceived benefits | |
Charity crowdfunding [77] | visual communication | behavioral beliefs | |
Localization of food systems [59] | purchasing habits | habits | |
Short food supply chains [60] | trust and convenience | attitudes and perceived functional benefits | |
Online grocery shopping [61] | ease of use, opinion of others | perceived functional benefits, subjective norms | |
Fintech services [62] | perceived risks and benefits, perceived behavioral intention | perceived benefits, behavioral control | |
Crowdfunding [58] | platform trust and crowdfunding readiness | attitudes |
Extraction Sum of Squared Loadings | Rotation Sums Do Squared Loadings | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Component | Total | % Variance | % Cumulative | Total | % Variance | % Cumulative |
1. Intention to adopt novel sharing models | 5.414 | 11.279 | 11.279 | 3.074 | 6.405 | 6.045 |
2. Intention to adopt digitalized services | 3.075 | 7.718 | 18.997 | 2.182 | 4.546 | 10.951 |
3. Thrift | 2.511 | 5.231 | 24.228 | 2.101 | 4.377 | 15.327 |
4. Intention to support the local economy | 2.064 | 4.300 | 28.529 | 2.062 | 4.295 | 19.623 |
5. Environmental and social responsibility | 1.659 | 3.456 | 31.984 | 2.024 | 4.217 | 23.839 |
6. Conscious transportation | 1.565 | 3.261 | 35.246 | 1.857 | 3.868 | 27.707 |
7. Green in purchasing | 1.449 | 3.018 | 38.263 | 1.837 | 3.827 | 31.538 |
8. Green in investment | 1.361 | 2.836 | 41.100 | 1.822 | 3.796 | 35.330 |
9. Amateur economy | 1.297 | 2.703 | 43.803 | 1.647 | 3.431 | 38.761 |
10. Maintenance | 1.279 | 2.665 | 46.468 | 1.638 | 3.412 | 42.173 |
11. Self-sufficiency | 1.239 | 2.581 | 49.049 | 1.535 | 3.197 | 45.370 |
12. Social norms | 1.209 | 2.519 | 51.567 | 1.492 | 3.108 | 48.478 |
13. Secondhand purchasing | 1.142 | 2.380 | 53.947 | 1.486 | 3.095 | 51.573 |
14. Long-term product use | 1.090 | 2.270 | 56.217 | 1.467 | 3.055 | 54.629 |
15. Simple life | 1.034 | 2.154 | 58.371 | 1.464 | 3.049 | 57.678 |
16. Reduced consumption | 1.009 | 2.102 | 60.473 | 1.342 | 2.796 | 60.473 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Csutora, M.; Harangozo, G.; Szigeti, C. Factors behind the Consumer Acceptance of Sustainable Business Models in Pandemic Times. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9450. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159450
Csutora M, Harangozo G, Szigeti C. Factors behind the Consumer Acceptance of Sustainable Business Models in Pandemic Times. Sustainability. 2022; 14(15):9450. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159450
Chicago/Turabian StyleCsutora, Maria, Gabor Harangozo, and Cecilia Szigeti. 2022. "Factors behind the Consumer Acceptance of Sustainable Business Models in Pandemic Times" Sustainability 14, no. 15: 9450. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159450