ارزش و ریسک در بانکداری الکترونیکی بنگاه به بنگاه
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|23835||2012||14 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||10610 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Industrial Marketing Management, Volume 41, Issue 1, January 2012, Pages 68–81
The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of risk in the formation of perceptions of value in the b2b domain, specifically within e-banking. The functional relationships between three types of risk (performance, financial and psychological) and the benefits and sacrifices components of value are tested within a broader nomological network that includes e-service quality (as an antecedent of value) and satisfaction, word-of-mouth and intention to switch (as outcomes of value). The hypothesised relationships are tested, using Partial Least Squares, on data collected through a postal survey from 167 UK-based SME organisations. The results confirm the significant but differential impact of the three types of risk on the two value components. Specifically performance risk and financial risk are found to be significant determinants of benefits, while psychological risk impacts on perceptions of sacrifices. We also provide evidence of the differential impact of the benefits and sacrifices components of value on satisfaction, and the existence of both direct and indirect (through satisfaction) impact of these components on word-of-mouth and intention to switch. This is the first documented empirical investigation of the impact of perceptions of risk in the study of perceptions of value within the domain of b2b marketing and consequently offers new insights into the subject matter. The theoretical and managerial implications of the findings are discussed and the manner in which the identified relationships can aid future research are explicated.
The impact of the internet, in the form of e-commerce, as a driver of strategic decisions within the b2b domain is well documented (see for example Good and Schultz, 2002 and Day and Bens, 2005). Furthermore, there is consensus on the influence of the internet as a platform for the development of alternative and/or complementary channels of distribution (Dewan et al., 2000, Johnson and Whang, 2002, Montoya-Weiss et al., 2003 and Webb, 2002). The functionality of the technological developments upon which the proliferation of e-commerce related activities is predicated is considered to be especially pertinent in the delivery of financial services such as e-banking. According to Akinci, Aksoy, and Atilgan (2004:212) internet technology “offers institutions alternative or non-traditional delivery channels through which banking products and services can be delivered … Internet banking (IB) is such a delivery channel that deserves special attention.” Stamoulis, Kanellis, and Martakos (2002) argue that one of the main criteria on which investment and use of e-banking should be evaluated by both suppliers and customers is risk (a view firmly embedded in supply distribution risk research; Zsidisin, 2003 and Ellis et al., 2011). It is further argued that risk is one of the key elements of organisational buying behaviour (see for example Doney and Cannon, 1997, Kumar and Grisaffe, 2004, Mitchell, 1998 and Wilson, 1995). According to Dwyer and Tanner (2009:104) “Risk is usually thought of in terms of the probability of an outcome and the importance of cost associated with the outcome.” Kothandaraman and Wilson (2001:382) add that “The ideal partner is one who adds significant value to your market offering and at the same time presents low risk as a partner.” The above indicate the existence of a logical connection between benefits (added value), sacrifices (cost) and risk, a view that is supported by Woodall (2003) who, in his review of value related literature, identified risk as a determinant of perceptions of value. The b2c literature offers considerable support for the above view (see for example, Agarwal and Teas, 2001, Agarwal and Teas, 2004, Keh and Sun, 2008, Kleijnen et al., 2007, Lei et al., 2008, Shamdasani et al., 2008, Snoj et al., 2004 and Sweeney et al., 1999); however, our review of the literature failed to identify any studies that examine the functional relationship between risk and perceptions of value that are located in the b2b domain (see for example review of value in the business-to-business domain by Lindgreen & Wynstra, 2005). This surprising lack of related research provides the impetus for this study, the aim of which is to examine the role of risk in the formation of perceptions of value in the b2b domain. Specifically, we locate our research in the e-banking sector because, (a) the b2b literature indicates that risk is especially pertinent in the adoption of e-technology (see for example Forsythe and Shi, 2003, Pavlou, 2003 and Tan, 1999), (b) the b2c literature provides corresponding evidence of the importance of risk in consumers' use of e-banking services (see for example, Grabner-Kräuter and Faullant, 2008, Wong et al., 2009 and Zhao et al., 2010),5 and (c) at the time of this study e-banking was at a mature stage of its development and represented a fairly standardised service across providers, thus minimising potential confounding effects. Specifically, this study examines the impact of risk on customers' perceptions of value derived from the use of (rather than on the decision to adopt) e-banking services. In the next section we present the theoretical foundations on which the research model designed to address the aim of this study is grounded. Debate related to methodological considerations and related actions is followed by presentation of the results of the analysis of the collected data. We proceed to debate the results and locate the findings within extant literature and offer managerial recommendations. The manuscript concludes by delineating the parameters of the investigation and offering suggestions for further research.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The aim of this study is to examine the role of risk in the formation of perceptions of value in b2b e-banking; in addition it contributes to the limited debate regarding the mediating role of satisfaction between perceptions of value and behavioural outcomes. The above are achieved through empirical testing of a theoretically grounded model that includes e-service quality, the benefits and sacrifices components of value, three types of risks (performance, financial and psychological), satisfaction, and two behavioural outcomes (word-of-mouth and intention to switch). The proposed hypotheses are discussed in turn. E-service quality is found to be a significant determinant of the benefits but not of the sacrifices component of value (i.e., support H1a but not H1b). In addition, we report that e-service quality is the major contributor in variance explained in benefits (i.e., contributes .81 to the R2 of benefits). These results are broadly in line with those reported by Whittaker et al. (2007) who found support for the impact of (service) quality on dimensions of the benefits component of value (i.e., emotional, functional, image) but not on the single dimension of sacrifices (i.e., price/quality). At the same time, the reported differential impact of e-service quality on benefits and sacrifices raises questions regarding the stability of results reported by studies that either do not explicitly include aspects of sacrifice (Barry and Terry, 2008, Cretu and Brodie, 2007, Eggert et al., 2006 and Lapierre et al., 1999) or combine benefits and sacrifices as an overall uni-dimensional construct (Barry and Terry, 2008, Blocker et al., 2011, Cretu and Brodie, 2007, Eggert et al., 2006, Gil et al., 2008, Han and Sung, 2008, Jayawardhena, 2010, Kumar and Grisaffe, 2004, La et al., 2009, Lapierre et al., 1999, Menon et al., 2005, Molinari et al., 2008 and Patterson and Spreng, 1997) or conceptualise value as a business or economic outcome (Eng, 2005 and Palmatier, 2008). The significant impact of risk on both the components of value justifies its inclusion in this investigation. Specifically, we offer empirical support for the significant impact of performance and financial risks on perceptions of sacrifices (H2b and H3b are supported) but not on the formation of perceptions of benefits (H2a and H3a are not supported). The reverse pattern applies to psychological risks, i.e. we offer support for the impact of this type of risk on perceptions of benefits (H4a) but not on sacrifices (H4b). Collectively, performance and financial risk account for .82 of the R2 associated with sacrifices while psychological risk contributes only .15 to the R2 of benefits. As already stated, this is the first study in the b2b domain that examines the impact of risk on the formation of perceptions of value, consequently directly comparable literature is not available. Our findings are broadly consistent with b2c literature that offers conclusive support for the impact of risk on value perceptions (see Kleijnen et al., 2007, Lei et al., 2008, Snoj et al., 2004 and Sweeney et al., 1999). For example, the significant impact of performance and financial risks on sacrifices is in line with Sweeney et al. (1999:81) who state that, within the value domain, risk represents a “subjective expectation of loss”, while the significant relationship between psychological risk and benefits accords with Agarwal and Teas (2001) who suggest that assessment of risk affects perceptions of expected performance. At the same time, an important difference emerges between our results and those reported in the b2c literature, which relates to the differential behaviour of the pathways between specific types of risk and the two components of value. We suggest that there is considerable danger of confounding effects present in the b2c literature due to the fact that all of the related studies treat value as a uni-dimensional construct (mainly as value for money) and, with the exception of Agarwal and Teas, 2001, Keh and Sun, 2008 and Lei et al., 2008, adopt a uni-dimensional operationalisation of risk. Despite the lack of directly related literature, it is logical to expect that if customer value is a significant determinant of satisfaction, the same will apply to the relationship between its two components and satisfaction (positive for benefits and negative for sacrifices). The results reported in Table 5 confirm the impact of benefits (H5a is supported) but not of sacrifices (H5b is not supported) on satisfaction. The potential time-dependent nature of value of e-banking offers an explanatory avenue.6 Notwithstanding the need for continuous upgrades in hardware, software and training, some of the monetary sacrifices take place prior to benefits received through the use of e-banking; thus, since the responding companies had already adopted e-banking at the point when the study was conducted, benefits dominated their answers. On the other hand, the results raise further questions regarding the potential confounding effects of aggregation and the consequent impact of incomplete operationalisations (a deficiency directly related to issues of content validity) on current knowledge. The issue of confounding effects is already expressed and relates to potential implications of aggregating constructs (such as benefits and sacrifices) that operate in opposite directions. The issue of incomplete operationalisations is best illustrated by reference to the studies by Spiteri and Dion, 2004 and Whittaker et al., 2007, which examine the impact of value on satisfaction at both aggregate (value as an overall construct) and disaggregate (the dimensions of value operate independently) levels. The former study finds no support for the impact of sacrifice on satisfaction while the latter study supports the functional relationship of these constructs. The reason for this divergence of results is found in the studies' respective operationalisations, i.e. in a similar way to this study, Spiteri and Dion (2004) operationalise sacrifice as comprising money, time and effort while Whittaker et al. (2007) use a value for money approach. Of the hypothesised direct effects of benefits and sacrifices on behavioural outcomes, the former is found to be a significant determinant of word-of-mouth but not of intention to switch (H7a is supported but not H7b) while the reverse is observed for sacrifices (i.e., H8b is supported but not H8a). In addition, benefits is found to be a stronger contributor in explaining variation in word-of-mouth compared to satisfaction (corresponding values are .68 and .32). Although the above are broadly in line with information presented in Table 2, due care and attention is required when considering our findings in relation to those of other studies. For example, a claim that the results reported here are in line with those by Cretu and Brodie (2007) ignores the fact that the latter study employs a single measure of intention that is a composite of word-of-mouth and future amount of business; consequently, it is not possible to partition, or accurately allocate, the impact of value on each of these two types of behaviour. Conversely, it is inaccurate to state that the results of this study are contrary to those by Lapierre et al. (1999) because these authors, (a) commit the same specification error in measuring intention as Cretu and Brodie (2007), (b) treat sacrifices as an antecedent rather than a component of value, and (c) omit to test for the direct impact of sacrifices on intention. Furthermore, the study by Olaru et al. (2008) that reports the significant direct impact of overall value on re-purchase intention (loyalty) and recommendation omits to include satisfaction in the model. In conclusion, we suggest that, when examining the impact of value on behavioural outcomes, there is sufficient evidence to support the need to treat value at its component (rather than aggregate) level and account for different types of behavioural outcomes. Finally, satisfaction is found to be a significant determinant of word-of-mouth (H6a is supported) but not of intention to switch (H6b is not supported). We identified only two studies that examine the simultaneous impact of satisfaction on the above behavioural outcomes within the b2b value domain. Lam et al., 2004 and Bontis et al., 2007 confirm the significant relationships between satisfaction and both the behavioural outcomes. The former is of particular relevance to this investigation because it accounts for direct effects from overall value to loyalty and recommendation. On page 308 of their paper, Lam et al. (2004) conclude that “Interestingly, we found difference in the role between the two loyalty dimensions. While customer satisfaction totally mediates the impact of customer value on the recommend dimension, the mediation is only partial for the patronage dimension.” (italics in the original). Despite the lack of complete correspondence between our results and those of the above authors (mainly due to the latter authors' treatment of value as a uni-dimensional construct), nonetheless there is support for our view that examination of the subject matter should include both direct and mediated (through satisfaction) relationships between value and behavioural outcomes. Using the logic presented in Lam et al. (2004:308) we conclude that recommendation of an e-banking provider is driven mainly through an affective state (satisfaction) that, in turn, is formed through perceptions of benefits received; on the other hand, intention to switch is the result of cognitive processes related to sacrifices made. Collectively our results are considered to make the following contributions. Although e-banking is the focal sector of this investigation, to our knowledge, this is the first examination of the functional relationships between different types of risk and perceptions of value within the broad b2b field. Focusing on the e-banking domain, our findings confirm the view that risk is a significant determinant of perceptions of value and offer insight into the behaviour of types of risk. Evidence of differential patterns amongst the functional relationships of benefits and sacrifices supports the disaggregate approach adopted by Spiteri and Dion, 2004 and Whittaker et al., 2007 and represents a challenge to results reported by studies that model value as either a uni-dimensional or as an aggregate higher order multi-dimensional construct. Although further research is required in order to reach a defensible position, our findings are in line with general views expressed by Edwards (2001) regarding the lack of clarity and confounding effects associated with the use of higher order structures. Finally, we extend the results reported by Lam et al. (2004) by demonstrating the mediating role of satisfaction in the impact of value on different types of behavioural intention.