Resources, Conservation & Recycling 175 (2021) 105892

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation & Recycling

journal homepage: [Link]/locate/resconrec

Full length article

Factors influencing the adoption of sharing economy in B2B context in

China: Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA
Stephanie Hui-Wen Chuah a, b, *, Ming-Lang Tseng b, c, d, Kuo-Jui Wu e, Cheng-Feng Cheng f
a
School of Hospitality, Tourism and Events, Taylor’s University, Subang Jaya, Malaysia
b
Institute of Innovation and Circular Economy, Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan
c
Department of Medical Research, China Medical University Hospital, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan
d
Faculty of Economics and Management, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Malaysia
e
School of Management, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan
f
Department of Business Management, National Taichung University of Science and Technology, Taichung, Taiwan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The birth of the sharing economy (SE) has been linked to a paradigm shift towards sustainable consumption,
Sharing economy resulting from economic, environmental, and societal pressure. As a disruptive innovation, the SE presents both
Sustainability opportunities and challenges to businesses. However, prior studies on the SE have predominantly focused on the
Business-to-business
business-to-consumer (B2C) domain. To examine the factors that influence business-to-business (B2B) SE
China
PLS-SEM
adoption, we developed a research model based on the diffusion of innovation theory, the Technology-
fsQCA Organization-Environment framework, and the social exchange theory. We empirically analyzed a sample of
127 Chinese companies by applying partial least squares-structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) and fuzzy-set
qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). The results from the PLS-SEM indicate that motivations affect a firm’s
intention to adopt the SE indirectly through top management support, whereas constraints affect a firm’s
adoption intention directly. It also suggests that reciprocity benefits are a salient motivating factor. The fSQCA
findings reveal that there are three causal conditions that lead to high adoption intention.

1. Introduction population, the SE is booming thanks to the Internet, mobile payment

technologies, and price conscious consumers (Ma and Zhang, 2019). A
Recent years have witnessed the emergence of a more sustainable recent report from the State Information Centre shows that the trans­
and affordable mode of consumption in peer-to-peer (P2P) business action volumes of China’s SE reached US$473.71 billion in 2019 and
models. P2P business models essentially shift firm and consumer pref­ forecasts an annual growth rate of up to 15 percent between 2020 to
erences from ownership to on-demand access (Benjaafar et al., 2019; 2022 (Xinhua, 2020).
Lamberton and Rose, 2012). This paradigm shift is ushered by advanced The SE presents opportunities for individuals who are temporarily
information technologies that connect customers to suppliers via online unemployed or using it to supplement their income, enhance social
platforms to unlock the value of underutilized assets (Li et al., 2019). interaction, improve reciprocity, and access resources they might not
This phenomenon has been termed “the sharing economy” (SE) and it otherwise attained (Dillahunt and Malone, 2015; Kathan et al., 2016).
occurs when people coordinate “the acquisition and distribution of a Therefore, many experts believe that the SE can ameliorate societal
resource for a fee or other compensation” (Belk, 2014b, p. 1597). This problems such as hyper-consumption, pollution, and poverty (Hamari
innovative business model has been widely adopted in many industries, et al., 2016; Laukkanen et al., 2020). Therefore, by adding environ­
including transportation (e.g., Uber, Didi), accommodation (e.g., mental, social, and economic value to the value proposition, the SE
Airbnb, [Link]), construction (e.g., EquipmentShare, Yard Club), contributes to a more sustainable society (Cocquyt et al., 2020). The
labor (e.g., TaskRabbit, Upwork), and food (e.g., EatWith, VizEat). In classification of the SE is based on market structure (business-to-con­
2015, the global SE was valued at US$15 billion and is estimated to grow sumer (B2C) or business-to-business (B2B)), platform orientations
to US$335 billion by 2025 (PwC, 2015). In China, with the growing (profit or non-profit), or types of shared products (space or workforce)

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [Link]@[Link] (S.H.-W. Chuah).

[Link]
Received 3 December 2020; Received in revised form 21 August 2021; Accepted 25 August 2021
0921-3449/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
S.H.-W. Chuah et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 175 (2021) 105892

(Plewnia and Guenther, 2018). Although B2C transactions (e.g., Airbnb analysis (fsQCA) provides an in-depth understanding of the complex,
and Uber) have largely dominated the current SE market, B2B trans­ non-linear, and synergistic effects. To a large extent, it complements
actions are gaining traction. Some of the B2B sharing platforms allow PLS-SEM by offering more detailed insights into the patterns of ante­
businesses to share assess to everything from production facilities and cedent factors for an outcome (Duarte and Pinho, 2019; Leischnig et al.,
equipment (e.g., V-Industry and Klickrent), medical resource (e.g., 2016). Theoretically, this study provides empirically-based insights into
Cohealo) to office space (e.g., WeWork and PivotDesk). Sharing assets B2B SE adoption and advances the current understanding of factors
and resources can streamline companies by allowing them to operate driving and inhibiting it. Our PLS-SEM findings indicate that motiva­
flexibly and respond quickly to market changes in a cheaper and more tions affect a firm’s intention to adopt the SE indirectly through top
efficient manner (Brooks, 2017; Grondys, 2019). The [Link] management support, whereas constraints affect a firm’s adoption
survey found that nearly 60 percent of businesses will spend more in the intention directly. Reciprocity benefits, which have rarely been studied
SE in the near future because it either has served their business well or in the SE literature, have emerged as an important motivation in this
because they have no other option (Brooks, 2017). study. Our fsQCA findings reveal that high adoption intention can be
Despite the tremendous opportunities afforded by the SE, they also achieved through the configurations of different causal factors rather
pose risks. For service providers, sharing often exposes their personal than single causal factors. Thus, this study endorses the methodologi­
assets to the risk of damage or theft, which may not be covered by in­ cally wiser approaches that combine both analytical techniques for the
surance (Lutz et al., 2018). For firms and consumers, uncertainty per­ outcome of interest. Managerially, the results provide SE companies
ceptions and fears of opportunism arise from their inability to evaluate with a nuanced understanding of the complex causality and trade-off
the products or services in advance and meet the providers face-to-face between antecedent factors, helping them devise effective business
before the transactions take place (Chen et al., 2014; Yang et al., 2019). strategies.
Furthermore, online platforms are vulnerable to cyber attacks, which
may result in breaches to personal data (Lutz et al., 2018). Above all, 2. Literature review
initiating trust in the online platforms and among strangers is a critical
issue for the SE (Chen et al., 2014), and they have been viewed as two 2.1. The sharing economy
major barriers inhibiting transactions (So et al., 2018; Tussyadiah and
Pesonen, 2018). In addition, such disruptive business models often There is no unified definition for the SE and this term is often used
outpace the relevant legislation and fall into a gray legal zone (Gut­ interchangeably with “collaborative consumption”, “peer-to-peer econ­
tentag, 2015). These regulatory uncertainties raise client protection is­ omy”, “gig economy”, “on-demand economy”, and “crowd economy”
sues (e.g., laws that prohibit fraud and other deceptive practices) and (Gössling and Hall, 2019; Kumar et al., 2018). The concept of the SE is
discourage them from entering into the transaction (ter Huurne et al., not new, but it has flourished in recent years with the development of
2017; McKee, 2018). digital technologies and growing awareness of environmental and social
Although the SE offers an intelligent solution for resource manage­ challenges (Benjaafar et al., 2019; Hamari et al., 2016). Acquier et al.
ment in the fourth industrial revolution (Grondys, 2019), massive (2017) suggested the SE is based on three pillars: (1) assess economy
adoption has still not occured. Consequently, firms cannot take full includes a set of initiatives to optimize the use of underutilized assets
advantages of Industry 4.0, including improved productivity and effi­ (material resources or skills) through sharing; (2) platform economy
ciency, better flexibility and agility, and higher profits. Furthermore, covers a set of initiatives that intermediates decentralized exchanges
studies on the adoption of the SE by B2B companies is still in its fledging among peers through digital platforms; and (3) community-based econ­
stage (Kathan et al., 2016), and prior studies have largely focused on the omy refers to initiatives coordinating through non-contractual, non-hi­
B2C domain and employed the traditional symmetric approach (e.g., erarchical or non-monetized forms of interaction. The most widely
regression and structural equation modeling (SEM), which assume that accepted definition of the SE is by Hamari et al. (2016), who referred the
relations between variables are linear (e.g., Amaro et al., 2019; Boateng SE to as “the peer-to-peer based activity of obtaining, giving, or sharing
et al., 2019; Lee et all., 2018; Tussyadiah, 2016). In fact, the SE is a the access to goods and services, coordinated through community-based
complex dynamic system involving the heterogeneity of actors, “inter­ online services” (p. 2047). These online platforms connect “a consumer
dependent, unpredictable and often conflicting behaviors of its com­ that aims to temporarily utilize assets with a peer service provider who
ponents, rather than following a predetermined plan” (Gurău and grants access to these assets” (Benoit et al., 2017, p. 220), either
Ranchhod, 2020, p. 2). Moreover, the complexity and uncertainty in the monetarily or in exchange for another resource. Distinct from the
SE are likely to increase due to the higher risks compared to traditional traditional form of exchange, SE is characterized by temporary access,
establishments (Pappas, 2019). Since the causal interactions are com­ non-ownership transfer, and optimum use of resources with the help of
plex, merely assessing the linear (symmetric) relations may lead to mediation platforms (Kathan et al., 2016). Meanwhile, SE is a triadic
erroneous results that disguise the complex realities of SE (Olya and rather than dyadic exchange, involving firm/consumer, service pro­
Akhsik, 2019). Although managerial decisions are typically made based vider, and online platform (Benoit et al., 2017; Kumar et al., 2018).
on multiple causal factors rather than single causal factors (Leischnig According to Plewnia and Guenther (2018), the market structure of
et al., 2016), empirical studies have not yet addressed the complex the SE is not only limited to B2C or C2C (consumer-to-consumer), but
phenomenon of SE in the B2B sector. also include B2B and government-to-consumer transactions. This study
To address these research gaps, this study developed an adoption focuses on the B2B SE and defines it as “a socioeconomic system
model for the B2B SE grounded in the diffusion of innovation theory enabling an intermediated set of exchanges of assets and resources be­
(DOI), the TOE framework, and the social exchange theory (SET). In tween organizations which aims to increase efficiency and optimization
particular, this study attempts (1) to examine the direct effects of mo­ of underutilized resources” (Muñoz and Cohen, 2017, p. 21). Notable
tivations and constraints on a firm’s intention to adopt the SE and to illustrations of the SE’s application in the B2B context can be seen in the
establish whether top management support serves as a mediator in these construction, manufacturing, and logistics industries that are
relationships and (2) to evaluate the complexity of attribute configura­ asset-heavy in nature. For example, an American startup called Yard
tion (i.e., motivations, constraints, and top management support) that Club (acquired by Caterpillar) helped sharing over 700 pieces of con­
leads to high adoption intention. To achieve these goals, we employed a struction equipment, which would otherwise sit idle 70% of the time
multiple-method approach to analyze the data obtained from 127 Chi­ (DHL Trend Research, 2017). Although the SE has significantly dis­
nese companies. While partial least squares-structural equation rupted the heavy industry, it holds the potential for a more environ­
modeling (PLS-SEM) provides net effect explanation for the linear re­ mentally and socially sustainable practice (Cocquyt et al., 2020). Apart
lationships between variables, fuzzy-set qualitative comparative from reducing the costs of access, the SE also promises to reduce waste

2
S.H.-W. Chuah et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 175 (2021) 105892

and environmental degradation while enhance community interaction 3. Theoretical background

by encouraging people to pool resources and work collaboratively
(Habibi et al., 2017; Mi and Coffman, 2019). Remarkably, after the An absence of strongly established overarching theories in the
disruption certain B2B firms began sharing resources for businesses that fledging SE literature implies that the integration of different theoretical
were previously unable to access (Slagen, 2014). While participants can foundation is needed in order to advance the field (So et al., 2018). The
reap benefits from the SE, it also raises issues pertaining to legal and first theory we adopted in this study is diffusion of innovation (DOI)
regulatory uncertainty (Hwang, 2019), tax evasion (Guttentag, 2015), (Rogers, 1983). DOI posits that innovative characteristics and organi­
consumer and labor protection (ter Huurne et al., 2017), precarious zational characteristics underlie a firm’s adoption of innovation. The
working conditions for SE providers (Köbis et al., 2021), racial innovative characteristics include relative advantage, compatibility,
discrimination (Schor and Attwood-Charles, 2017), and nuisance for complexity, trialability, and observability; and the organizational
uninvolved third parties (Köbis et al., 2021). characteristics include centralization, complexity, size, slack, formal­
ization, and interconnectedness. The second theoretical perspective is
2.2. Gap analysis of the extant literature the Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) framework (Tor­
natzky and Fleischer, 1990), which postulates that the process by which
A critical analysis of the existing SE literature (see Table 1) reveals a firm implements and adopts technological innovations is influenced by
two main gaps. First, previous studies in this field tend to focus on B2C three aspects: (1) the technological context, which includes both the
contexts, leaving the B2B domain less explored. Meanwhile, reciprocity internal and external technologies relevant to the firm; (2) the organi­
which is a cornerstone of successful business relationships and a zational context, which describes the internal characteristics of a firm,
pervasive phenomenon in the SE business models has been overlooked such as its size and scope, managerial structure, resources, and the
(Starr et al., 2020; Voss et al., 2019). Another unexplored area is top process of communication among employees; and (3) the environmental
management support, which is a powerful force that works either on context, which refers to the elements of external arena in which a firm is
behalf or against innovation adoption process in organizations (Alsaad surrounded by—e.g., its trading partners, competitors, and government.
et al., 2017). While prior research based on the To some extent, the DOI theory may overlap with the TOE framework
Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) framework suggests that but notable differences exist. For example, the DOI theory does not cover
top management support is an organizational feature in parallel with the environmental aspect, while the TOE framework does not take into
other technological and environmental features (e.g., Illin et al., 2017; account the involvement of individual characteristic (e.g., top man­
Oliveira et al., 2014; Sun et al., 2020), Liang et al. (2007) argued that top agement support). However, since the SE is not a technology but rather
management beliefs about the viability of new business models are an innovative business model that leverages technology, we adopt the
shaped by those motivating and constraining factors. In essence, top “innovation characteristics” perspective in the DOI theory rather than
managers can act as an internal human agency that turns external forces the “technology” perspective in the TOE framework. In this study,
into managerial actions such as changing organizational structures and perceived benefits in this study are analogous to “relative advantage”,
establishing relevant policies. Surprisingly, little research has examined an attribute or characteristic of innovation. Meanwhile, top manage­
the impacts of motivations and constraints on firms’ intention to adopt ment support pertains to the organizational context; and the lack of
B2B SE through the mediating effect of top management support. regulatory support pertains to the environmental context.
Second, a scrutiny of the existing studies on the factors that influence Finally, social exchange theory (SET), introduced by Homans (1958),
SE adoption reveals contradictory and inconsistent findings. For is one the most influential theories to understand SE relations that
example, Amaro et al. (2019) found that millennials’ intention to book involve interpersonal exchanges between parties and the resulting social
on Airbnb is influenced by subjective norm, desire for unique accom­ structures (Boateng et al., 2019; Tussyadiah, 2016; Wang et al., 2019).
modation and variety, attitude and economic benefits but not by By definition, social exchange is “the exchange of activity, tangible or
perceived risk. In a similar context, So et at. (2018) demonstrated that intangible, and more or less rewarding or costly, between at least two
neither social interactions nor perceived risk has a significant effect on persons or more” (Homans, 1961, p. 13). In essence, there are two
consumer behavior towards Airbnb, while price value, home benefits fundamental tenets that inform the selection of factors influencing B2B
and distrust can only influence their behavior intention indirectly via SE adoption decisions. First, SET holds that customer participation in the
attitude. However, it has been shown that perceived risks, perceived exchange of resources through SE platforms are not only driven by
benefits, trust in platform, and perceived platform qualities are key economic and social benefits, but also by the expectations of reciprocity
determinants of users’ intention to participate in Uber (Lee et al., 2018). (Boateng et al., 2019; Davlembayeva et al., 2020). This is because
A plausible explanation is that the adoption of SE has been mostly “(social) exchange requires a bidirectional transaction—something has
addressed using the conventional symmetric approach (e.g., regression to be given and something returned” (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005, p.
and SEM) that does not fully capture the complexities underlying firms’ 876), meaning that it creates feelings of personal obligations, gratitude,
adoption decision. The growing complexity of the SE arises from the and trust which pure economic exchange does not (Blau, 1964). Within a
conflicts between various stakeholders and diverse business models, B2B context, firms may also feel obliged to return the favor of benefits
which operate in different geographical locations across the world under voluntarily granted by their business partners (Voss et al., 2019). Reci­
disparate, intricate policy and regulation (Hossain, 2020; Muñoz and procity can be in the form of monetary (e.g., discounts or rebates) and
Cohen, 2017). Although fSQCA could discern the non-linear (asym­ non-monetary (e.g., personalized services). In the case of non-monetary
metric), heterogenous, and dynamic interaction between antecedents transactions, the timeframe for return is less specified and the nature of
and behavioral outcome (Olya and Akhshik, 2019; Woodside, 2017), reciprocal resources is dependent on the needs of the other party.
very few studies on the SE have adopted this novel approach. In fact, However, the behavior of a party is deemed opportunistic when the
Pappas (2017) has highlighted the superiority of fsQCA over conven­ condition of return is bargained (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005; Dav­
tional linear analyses when dealing with the complexity of SE. Consid­ lembayeva et al., 2020). The second tenet postulates that firms and
ering the nascent and paradoxical nature of the SE in the B2B context, people interact to maximize their rewards and minimize their costs.
there is a need to examine both linear and non-linear relationships From a cost-benefit perspective, interpersonal interactions are consid­
among constructs in order to gain a thorough understanding of this ered a social exchange when actors acquire benefits (Shiau et al. 2012).
emerging phenomenon. The concept of cost-benefit analysis underpins SET enables the in­
vestigations into factors motivating and inhibiting SE transactions. In
the context of micro-blogging, Liu et al. (2016) applied SET to explore
the social benefits and costs of online self-disclosure. Specifically, they

3
S.H.-W. Chuah et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 175 (2021) 105892

Table 1
Review of the most relevant studies on the sharing economy.
Authors Constructs Methodology Context Key findings

Hamari et al. Factors: Sustainability, enjoyment, Structural equation modeling Sharetribe - an international Participation in collaborative consumption
(2015) reputation, and economic benefits on 168 Finnish users collaborative consumption hub is motivated by sustainability, enjoyment,
that offers its service package to and economic gains. Sustainability
various organizations influences participation indirectly via
attitudes.
Tussyadiah Factors: Social benefits, enjoyment, Structural equation modeling P2P accommodation Guest satisfaction is influenced by factors of
(2016) economic benefits, sustainability, on 644 US travelers enjoyment, monetary benefits (value), and
amenities, locational benefits accommodation amenities. It was found
that future intention to use P2P
accommodation is determined by
enjoyment and value
Tussyadiah and Drivers: Economic benefits, sustainability, Exploratory factor analysis P2P accommodation rentals (e. Social appeal (desire for community and
Pesonen (2018) social connection, and enjoyment on 799 US and 1246 Finnish g., Airbnb), except free P2P sustainability) and economic appeal are two
Barriers: Distrust, privacy and security, travelers accommodation (e.g., factors that drive the use of P2P
unfamiliarity, and cost Couchsurfing) accommodation. Distrust, efficacy, and
unfamiliarity with the system, and cost are
those barriers.
So et al. (2018) Motivations: Price value, authenticity, Mixed-methods: 8 focus Airbnb For motivations, price value, enjoyment,
novelty, enjoyment, social interaction, group interviews and PLS- and home benefits significantly predict
and home benefits Constraints: Perceived SEM on 500 US (250 Airbnb overall attitude toward Airbnb. Distrust is
risk, distrust, and insecurity users + 250 non- Airbnb the only constraining factor to influence
users) overall attitude, while insecurity is directly
linked to behavioral intentions. Overall
attitude, perceived behavioral control, and
subjective norms influence behavioral
intentions.
Amaro et al. Factors: Economic benefits, perceived Structural equation modeling Airbnb Millennials’’ intentions to book on Airbnb is
(2019) risk, subjective norm, attitude, and unique on 104 Chinese and 98 influenced by subjective norm, desire for
accommodation and variety German users unique accommodation and variety,
attitude, and economic benefits. Perceived
risk with purchase channel was found to
have no impact on booking intention.
Boateng et al. Factors: Consumer need for prestige, trust, Structural equation modeling Uber Trust, customer return on investment, and
(2019 social connection, customer return on on 500 Ghanaian users search convenience are the key factors that
investment, and search convenience contribute to riders’ usage of Uber service,
whereas consumers’ need for prestige and
social connection do not.
Lee et al. (2018) Inhibiting factors: Perceived risks Structural equation modeling Uber Perceived risks, perceived benefits, trust in
Motivating factors: Perceived benefits and on 295 Hong Kong users the platform, and perceived platform
trust in the platform Technological qualities were significant predictors of
factors: Perceived platform qualities users’ intention to participate in Uber.
De Canio et al. Motivations: Economic benefits, social Exploratory regression Airbnb Social interaction and social esteem, either
(2020). interaction, social esteem, and analysis and fsQCA on 458 combined themselves or in partial
sustainability Italian users combination with economic benefits,
emerge as two important drivers of
behavioral intention to use P2P
accommodation. Sustainability appears in
three of the combination.
Pappas (2017) Attributes: Social aspects, economic Mixed-methods: Regression, P2P accommodation Three configurations combining socio-
aspects, benefits, risks, and trust Cramer’s V, and fSQCA on economic orientation, trust formulation,
352 Greece users and price sensitivity influence tourists’
decisions.
Böcker and Motivations: Economic, social, and Multivariate analysis on Car, ride, accommodation tool, Motivations to participate differ between
Meelen (2017) environmental aspects 1330 Dutch users and meal sharing socio-demographic groups, between users
and providers, and different types of shared
goods
Davlembayeva Social and psychological factors Structural equation modeling Carsharing, apartment sharing, The use of the SE was conditioned by the
et al. (2019) on 487 US users product-service exchange, positive effect of egoistic belief, reciprocity
retail, P2P lending and norm, social value, and the negative effect
coworking of identification. There is a strong
relationship between use behavior and
outcome, moderated by age, use frequency,
and use intensity.
Grondys (2019) The share of fixed assets and costs Forms Chi-square correlation Enterprises Neither the type of resources nor the
and directions of resource exchange analysis and ANOVA test on willingness to reduce costs constitute the
325 enterprises motivation of enterprises for participating
in the SE if there are no formal and
technological solutions enabling its
implementation.
Govindan et al. Barriers: Economic, stakeholder, social, Mixed-methods: In-depth SMEs Lack of trust was identified as the most
(2020) and technical aspects interviews (38 industrial influential and capital costs was identified
managers), literature review, as the least influential barriers to the
Best Worst Method, and implementation of industrial SE.
DEMATEL
(continued on next page)

4
S.H.-W. Chuah et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 175 (2021) 105892

Table 1 (continued )
Authors Constructs Methodology Context Key findings

Möhlmann, Determinants: Community belonging, cost Structural equation modeling Study 1 = B2C care sharing Utility, trust, cost savings, and familiarity
(2015) savings, environmental impact, on 423 German users (Study car2go Study 2 = C2C were key determinants of user satisfaction
familiarity, internet capability, service 1=236 users; Study 2=187 accommodation Airbnb in both studies, whereas service quality and
quality, smartphone capability, trend users) community belonging were identified
affinity, trust, and utility solely in study 1.
Köbis et al. Economic, social, and psychological Literature review and in- General A well-functioning payment infrastructure,
(2021). consequences depth coding insurance, and communication enables the
positive consequences, while ambiguity
about rules, roles, and regulations causes
non-negligible negative consequences

identified perceived privacy risk, lack of trust (service provider), and and establish whether top management support serves as a mediator in
perceived anonymity of self as the cost variables. On this basis, we these relationships (Fig. 1). The SE is rapidly gaining momentum in an
conceptualize constraints as a multidimensional construct, consisting of interconnected world, spurred by economic (e.g., monetize redundant
perceived risks, lack of trust (platform), lack of trust (service provider), inventory and improve financial stability), environmental (e.g., reduce
and lack of regulatory support. waste and greenhouse gas emissions), societal (e.g., cultivate a sense of
Based on a synthesis of these three theoretical lenses, an overarching community and promote social cohesion in neighborhoods), and tech­
research model is provided and the main constructs are identified. nological factors (e.g., social networking and mobile devices) (Mi and
Indeeed, Mayer and Sparrowe (2013) argued that “many phenomena Coffman, 2019; Tussyadiah and Pesonen, 2018). Given the complexity
and research questions cannot be drawing on a single theory”. (p. 920). involved in measuring the motivations and constraints associated with
Previous studies have substantiated this claim by showing that a com­ the SE adoption, these constructs have rarely been treated as single di­
bination of DOI and TOE elements enables a better understanding of IT mensions. Instead, previous researchers tend to conceptualize and
innovation adoption than either theory could provide in isolation (e.g., operationalize them in a multidimensional manner. For example, Tus­
Ilin et al., 2017; Oliveira et al., 2014; Sun et al., 2020). Furthermore, SET syadiah and Pesonen (2018) have acknowleged the multifacted nature
can complement DOI theory by providing deeper insights into what of drivers (i.e., economic benefits, sustainability, community, and
constitutes perceived benefits (relative advantage). Reciprocity and enjoyment) and barriers (i.e., trust, efficacy, familiaty with the system,
trust, two salient characteristics of the SE, are also embedded in SET. and cost) to the use of P2P accomodation. In a similar context, So et al.
While DOI and TOE theories postulate that factors influencing organi­ (2018) have identified price value, enjoyment, and home benefits as key
zational technology adoption can be disaggregated into innova­ factors motivating consumers to choose Airbnb, whereas distrust and
tion/technology, organizational, and environmental components, SET insecurity constitute barriers for using Airbnb. However, these factors
suggests that it is important to distinguish positive (e.g., financial ben­ can be summarized in more abstract higher-level constructs without
efits) from negative attributes (e.g., perceived risks) and classify them compromising the conceptual plausibility. In fact, Sarstedt et al. (2019)
into motivations and constraints so that firms can weigh the benefits and suggested that complex constructs should be modeled in a higher-order
costs of an exchange relationship. manner, as it not only can help to circumvent the bandwidth-fidelity
dilemma but can also help to simplify the number of path relation­
4. Research model and hypotheses development ships in the model and ultimately achieve a parsimonious model. In the
context of SE, So et al. (2018) highlighted the need to “develop a
This study proposes a conceptual model to determine the direct ef­ comprehensive but parsimonious set of motivation and constraint fac­
fects of motivations and constraints on a firm’s intention to adopt the SE tors for the purpose of building an effective measurement model” (p.

Fig. 1. Conceptual model.

5
S.H.-W. Chuah et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 175 (2021) 105892

225). Therefore, we modeled both motivations and constraints as providing them with information about local transportation/events, and
higher-order formative constructs, with the four lower-order constructs introducing them to friends. These opportunities for social bonding and
jointly determine each construct, rather than manifestations of it. Since a sense of community drive consumers to choose Airbnb accommoda­
each dimension (e.g., sustainable benefits and social connection bene­ tions over hotel stays (Tussyadiah and Zach, 2017). In B2B settings,
fits) captures a distinct facet of the construct’s domain (e.g., motiva­ social connection benefits refer to the extent to which a firm believes
tions), they are not necessarily expected to be interchangeable and that asset sharing could improve social ties with other firms (Hsu and
covary with one another. The same goes for constraints. To account for Lin, 2008). Needless to say, “the importance of social ties in business
firm- and industry-specific effects, we added firm size, firm age, and relationships is evident all around us. Business relationships are built on
industry type as control variables in the proposed model, as depicted in friendships, and friendships are built on a variety of social interactions”
Fig. 1. (Dwyer and Tanner, 2006, p. 480). Paulssen and Roulet (2017) further
suggested that a strong social tie could produce more trust in the B2B
4.1. Motivations relationships, as it increases the predictability of another party’s
behavior and reduces the fear of opportunistic behavior.
4.1.1. Financial benefits
One of the main reasons for consumer/firm participation in the SE is 4.1.4. Reciprocal benefits
cost-saving and revenue generation (Henten and Windekilde, 2016). By Reciprocal benefits denote “a beneficial behavior involving two ac­
enabling access over ownership, consumers can enjoy goods they cannot tors in the context of symbiosis, yet “with the expectation of a return
or do not want to buy at lower prices, while service provides can use favor” (Paraskevaidis and Andriotis, 2017, p. 28) that determines the
their underutilized assets to earn additional incomes. As a result, the longevity of business partnerships. As far as cooperation between
welfare of both parties is improved (Muñoz and Cohen, 2017). Prior non-kin individuals is concerned, Trivers (1971) introduced the theory
studies have identified financial benefits as the extrinsic motivation of reciprocal altruism, which suggests that mutual benefits are what
driving consumers’ use of P2P-based services, including accommodation humans and other species seek in bilateral cooperation (Trivers, 1971).
(So et al., 2018) and ridesharing (Lee et al., 2018). From the firms’ Indeed, the principle of reciprocal obligations the SET holds that a
perspective, SE offers an economic solution for both parties: on the one beneficial action by one party would lead to a kind response by another
hand, the suppliers can rent out their equipment, and on the other, the in bilateral relationships (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). However, if
users can pay for temporary access to expensive equipment, which may one business continually provides another with assistance, leads, and
avoid unnecessary investments. In turn, this could lead to cost reduction, resource but the other business does not reciprocate, perceived
revenue growth, and overall improved business performance (Grondys, inequality will eventually jeopardize the business relationship (Boateng
2019). et al., 2019; Spencer, 2012). Similarly, the Chinese culture adheres to
the age-old principles of “Guanxi” - China’s bespoke social network of
4.1.2. Sustainability benefits influence and power. This special relationship structure is built on
Increasingly, both consumers and firms are finding a more sustain­ reciprocal exchange of favors and mutual obligations and very much
able way of living and doing business in light of today’s growing envi­ common business practice. It is the preferential treatment to exchange
ronmental issues and overconsumption rates (Hu et al., 2019; partners in the forms of business dealings, easy access to scarce re­
Tussyadiah and Pesonen, 2018). Indeed, the SE offers a potential new sources and controlled information (Lee et al., 2001). In the context of
pathway to sustainable societies by reducing consumption-induced SE, participants are more likely to engage in reciprocal exchange since
resource depletion as people opt to share goods instead of owning most of the sharing platforms (e.g., Airbnb, Uber, and Floow2) use
them individually (Lai and Ho, 2020). It is believed that through effi­ bidirectional rating and review systems (Starr et al., 2020; Wang et al.,
cient resource management and an “asset-light lifestyle”, the SE can 2019). Proserpio et al. (2018) support this claim by providing evidence
reduce waste and pollution, bringing positive changes to the environ­ that Airbnb hosts that are more reciprocal (e.g., hosts who value their
ment (Mi and Coffman, 2019; Tussyadiah, 2016). In the transportation guests’ behavior) tend to have higher ratings, and this allows them to
sector, car-sharing behavior has been shown to improve air quality charge higher prices. Moreover, when a firm has access to resources they
because of lower carbon emissions (Hahn et al., 2020). For consumers could not otherwise afford, they will show gratitude to the service
interested in sustainability or prosocial behavior, participating in the SE providers by making referrals to other firms. Davlembayeva et al. (2019)
can satisfy their internalized ideology and help them become environ­ revealed that reciprocity norms have a positive impact on customers’
mentally responsible citizens (Tussyadiah, 2016). For firms to be so­ intention to use SE platforms, which in turn influence their subjective
cially responsible, they must show strong commitment to sustainability well-being.
and community welfare (Zhao et al., 2012). Hamari et al. (2016) Based on the above discussion, the following hypotheses are put
confirmed that sustainability benefits positively influence consumers’ forward:
intention to participate in the SE.
H1. . Motivations (composed of financial, sustainability, social, and
reciprocal benefits) are positively related to a firm’s intention to adopt
4.1.3. Social connection benefits
the SE.
According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, humans seek to fulfill
social needs such as the desire for socialization, belonging and accep­
tance among peer groups (Maslow, 1954). This is also espoused in social 4.2. Constraints
capital theory which argues that human beings are social by nature
(Zhang et al., 2019). The emergence of online intermediary platforms (e. 4.2.1. Perceived risks
g., Airbnb) which play a matching role in the new circuits of commerce, While the SE unlocks the maximum value of the assets, it also gives
not only facilitates the transactions between strangers through reputa­ rise to new risks and insurance challenges. Perceived risks describe the
tional capital, but also helps them create social connection and inter­ feeling of uncertainty about possible negative consequences of partici­
action (Boateng et al., 2019; Cheng, 2016). For P2P accommodations pating in the SE (Featherman and Pavlou, 2003). Earlier discussion on
such as Airbnb, a unique feature of its service is the authentic local the potential risks associated with SE has largely centered on privacy
experience where guests can have direct interactions with the hosts (i.e., and security concerns (e.g., Lee et al., 2018; Lutz et al., 2018). However,
local residents) but also connect with local communities in more So et al. (2018) argued that the SE may pose risks related to not only
meaningful ways (Tussyadiah and Pesonen, 2016). Examples of online transactions but also offline consumption and experience. These
host-guest interactions include hosts showing guests around the city, include monetary risks, performance risks, and physical risks. Monetary

6
S.H.-W. Chuah et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 175 (2021) 105892

risks refer to the firm’s perception that renting assets from the SE Based on the above discussion, the following hypotheses are put
companies or providers are more costly than the traditional leasing forward:
companies (Thakur and Srivastava, 2014). Performance risks refer to the
H2. . Constraints (composed of perceived risks, lack of trust in the
possibility of a product/service malfunctioning and not performing as it
platform, lack of trust in the service provider, lack of regulatory support)
was designed and advertised (Grewal et al., 1994). Physical risks are
are negatively related to a firm’s intention to adopt the SE.
related to owners’ concerns about the potential damage or loss to per­
sonal belongings (Lutz et al., 2018). It is questionable whether tradi­
4.3. The mediating role of top management support
tional insurance coverage can apply to the SE since the asset users are
not the owners. Perceived risks were found to be the key obstacle for the
Top management support is the extent to which top managers in the
SE participation (Lee et al., 2018), further emphasizing the necessity to
organization provide direction, authority, and resources for the adop­
set up the trust-building mechanisms to safeguard the transactions (Lutz
tion of SE (Ifinedo, 2008). Support from top managers not only ensure
et al., 2018).
the commitment of resources and the coordination of the diffusion
process, but also help cultivate the organizational climate by facilitating
4.2.2. Lack of trust (Platform vs. service provider)
employee involvement or initiating a cultural shift in a company (Ilin
Many commentators believe that the lack of trust has handicapped
et al., 2017; Sun et al., 2020; Tzempelikos, 2015). Top management
the expansion of the SE (Mao et al., 2020). A lack of trust reflects a
support has long been recognized as a critical success factor in the
consumer’s disbelief that the transacting parties will act cooperatively to
adoption of IT innovations, including big data (Sun et al., 2020),
fulfil their expectations without exploiting his or her vulnerabilities
blockchain (Clohessy and Acton, 2019), and cloud computing (Oliveira
(Chen et al., 2014). As a deterrent of the SE, distrust can be stemmed
et al., 2014). Liang et al. (2007) demonstrated that information system
from the institutional and the dispositional (Liang et al., 2018; Yang
(IS) assimilation within an organization is not only influenced by
et al., 2019). Institution-based trust involves a third-party platform and
external institutional forces, but also by the internal human agency (top
is based on a consumer’s belief that protective mechanisms and struc­
management). They further argued that “external forces, no matter how
tures such as guarantees, regulations, and legal recourse are established
strong they are, will have no effect on the behavior of human agents
to facilitate successful transactions with the vendors in an online
within the organization” (p. 61). Instead, top management beliefs about
marketplace (Liang et al., 2018; Lu et al., 2016). As online transactions
the advantages and disadvantages of IS guide their decision about
often involve the disclosure of personal and financial information,
whether to assimilate such a system. Furthermore, Wong et al. (2019)
firm/consumer concerns about privacy and security may negatively
implicitly recognized the mediating role of top management support in
affect their trust in the platform (Lutz et al., 2018; Mao et al., 2020;
linking the relative advantage and complexity of blockchain technology
Yang et al., 2019). Unlike institution-based trust which mainly focuses
to adoption intention. Thus, we postulate that the impacts of motiva­
on the transactional environment, disposition to trust focuses on the
tions and constraints on SE adoption are mediated by top management
conduct of the service providers.
support.
Trust in the owners in based on a firm/consumer’s belief that the
service providers will behave in a competent, reliable, or ethical H3. . Motivations influence a firm’s intention to adopt the SE indi­
manner, and will not engage in opportunistic behavior (Chen et al., rectly through top management support.
2014). Zhang and Li (2019) found that buyers’ trust beliefs in the
benevolence of salespersons significantly reduce purchase risk in the H4. . Constraints influence a firm’s intention to adopt the SE indirectly
Chinese B2B context. The main challenge of B2B SE is that sharing through top management support.
involved between two firms who are competitors in nature; hence, lack
of trust represents the major barriers for the implementation of B2B SE 4.4. Complexity in the sharing economy
(Govindan et al., 2020). In B2C settings, strangers meet face-to-face after
the matching process on the SE platform. Therefore, consumers are very Sharing-based businesses have progressed from pure P2P lending
concerned that the service providers may not adhere to their trans­ activities to complex platforms that connect people and companies for
actional obligations (Frenken and Schor, 2019; Lee et al., 2018). Such the collaborative consumption of resources (Muñoz and Cohen, 2017).
feelings of distrust can lead to psychological distress (e.g., anxiety or As a disruptive innovation, the SE system is complicated by regulatory
insecurity) and, consequently, hinder business exchanges in the online uncertainty as well as the coexistence and interdependence of a large
environment (Sthapit and Björk, 2019). variety of stakeholders (Guttentag, 2015; Newslands et al., 2018), who
move “between various circuits as they become in turn consumer, sup­
4.2.3. Lack of regulatory support plier, commentator and so on (Gregory and Halff, 2017, p. 9). Given the
Another significant challenge posed by the SE is the lack of a regu­ rapid evolving of the participants’ roles and interests in the SE market, it
latory framework to support this new business model. Regulatory sup­ provokes not only social conflicts between different stakeholders, but
port comes in the form of government policies and business laws to also ambivalent combinations of benefits and drawbacks (Gurău and
protect the SE transactions (Zhu and Kraemer, 2005). In traditional Ranchhod, 2020). For example, while the SE promotes “more sustain­
economy systems, the procedure for business transactions is clearly able consumption and production practices, (it also) reinforce(s) the
established, with firm/consumer rights protected by regulatory bodies. current unsustainable economic paradigm (Martin, 2016, p. 159).
However, new regulation is still unready for the SE, and the re­ Nowithstanding this growing complexity, symmetric approaches such as
sponsibilities of each party involved in transactions are not well defined regression and SEM remain dominant in this emerging field (e,g., Amaro
(Gili, 2018). For example, whether Uber should be responsible for its et al. 2019; Davlembayeva et al., 2019; Hamari et al., 2015; Tussyadiah,
drivers’ safety is linked to the unsettled legal question: are they em­ 2016;)
ployees or independent contractors? Furthermore, Uber’s efforts to In dealing with the paradoxical nature of SE, Pappas (2017) sug­
protect customer privacy may come at the expense of the safety of its gested that “complexity theory is able to provide a significant infor­
drivers (Bellon, 2020). Apart from contractual unfairness, the lack of mation concerning the way that behavioral patterns are formulated and
legal protection has left the SE transactions open to fraudulent activities expressed” (p. 2304). Instead of decomposing cases into a number of
and data breaches, eventually threatening the security and privacy of independent variables, fsQCA offers a pragmatic way to configure the
firms/consumers (Autenteq, 2019; McKee, 2018). Therefore, regulatory complex and interdependent cause-effect relationships into coherent
challenges pose an insurmountable barrier to the innovation diffusion accounts explaining variance in firms’ behavioral intentions toward
(Zhu and Kraemer, 2005). asset sharing (Ganter and Hecker, 2014). The theory of complexity and

7
S.H.-W. Chuah et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 175 (2021) 105892

configuration analysis both have inherent the principle of equifinality management support are indicated by arrow C that presents the complex
(Pappas, 2018), which states that the same outcome usually results from interactions of these factors to predict the outcome conditions (i.e.,
multiple configurations of causal factors rather than just a single one adoption intention).
(Ragin, 2000). For example, De Canio et al. (2021) showed that con­
sumers’ intention to use P2P accommodation in Italy is moved by four 5. Methodology
distinct combinations of motives, including economic benefits, social
interaction, social esteem, and sustainability. Likewise, Pappas (2017) 5.1. Sampling and data collection
unveiled the existence of three configurations explaining the attributes
of tourism decisions related to P2P accommodation in Greece. The target population of this study is manufacturing, construction,
The second principle is “causal asymmetry”, which suggests that the logistics and distribution companies located in China. While the oper­
same set of causal factors can produce diverging outcomes, depending ations of these capital-intensive businesses require substantial in­
on how such factors are positioned (Ordanini el al., 2014). In other vestments in heavy equipment and facilities, the SE permits them to gain
words, the presence of an antecedent may lead the high level of an temporary access to underutilized equipment they could not otherwise
outcome, but the absence or negation of the same antecedent may not afford in a less expensive way. China offers an appropriate context for
necessarily lead to low level of an outcome. In the context of P2P ac­ this study because the failure of Chinese companies to meet waste
commodation, Pappas (2017) demonstrated that high trust can management and emission reduction targets have granted them the
engender high levels of purchasing intentions, while low trust can also lowest rank in Asia for environmental sustainability. China’s weak
lead to similar outcomes if consumers perceive high benefits and eco­ sustainability performance can be attributed to a large disparity in
nomic aspects but low risks and social aspects. Thus, we formulate the resource and waste management (Fernandez, 2019). With pressure
following tenets: mounting from governments and consumers, Chinese companies are
realizing that they will not only have to incorporate the sharing of assets
H5. : No single configuration of motivational and constraint attributes
in their business models, but also learn to behave more reciprocally
is sufficient for explaining high intention to adopt; instead, multiple,
rather than pursue only their self-interests (Marukawa, 2017). In China,
equally effective configurations of causal factors exist.
guanxi is at the heart of personal and business relationships, making the
reciprocal effect more prominent and providing a useful context for this
H6. : Single conditions of motivational and constraint attributes can
research (Starr et al., 2020).
have opposite effects on intention to adopt, depending on how they
The questionnaires were emailed to qualified individuals (e.g.,
combine with other conditions to form a solution.
owners or top managers) of the selected companies together with a cover
This study utilizes a Venn diagram to design the proposed configu­ letter that explained the purpose of the survey. We sent out the survey
rational model (Fig. 2). Arrow A represents a combination of motiva­ invitations to 300 companies, which were randomly selected from da­
tions—financial, sustainability, social, and reciprocal benefits—which tabases such as China Stock Market and Accounting Research (CSMAR)
are used to explore causal models predicting the intention to adopt the and Tianyancha. Given the relatively low adoption rate of B2B SE in
SE. The configuration of constraints to predict the adoption intention is China, examining the participation intention among non-adopter firms
based on perceived risks, lack of trust (platform), lack of trust (service is of paramount importance. To ensure their eligibility, the participants
provider), and lack of regulatory support, indicated by Arrow B. Top are required to meet the following criteria: (1) Their firms are currently
management support was added to the configurational model as a causal not participating in the asset sharing with other firms and (2) They must
ingredient. A combination of motivations, constraints, and top hold senior management positions and be the decision-makers who have

Fig. 2. Configuration model.

Notes: **p < 0.01; n.s.=Not significant; Dotted line represents insignificant path

8
S.H.-W. Chuah et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 175 (2021) 105892

the authority to decide whether to share the firms’ assets with others. A 6. Data analysis
brief definition of the B2B SE is also explicated. Of the 300 potential
respondents, a total of 168 were returned, resulting in a 56 percent A multiple-method approach was applied to test the proposed model.
response rate. After removing responses that were unusable or not First, we employed the partial least squares structural equation
meeting the inclusion criteria, 127 were retained for subsequent anal­ modeling (PLS-SEM) via SmartPLS 3.3.2 to examine the net effects of
ysis. Table 2 shows the demographic profile of the respondents. motivations, constraints, and top management on SE adoption intention.
To test for non-response bias, we compared the early and late Compared to covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM),
response groups using the t-test. The results show no significant mean PLS-SEM is more advantageous as the goal of this study is to identify the
differences between the two groups, suggesting that the sample did not key drivers/barriers of an outcome variable and to model these ante­
suffer from non-response bias. The common method bias (CMB) was cedent factors as reflective-formative hierachical latent variables (Hair
assessed using the full collinearity test (Kock and Lynn, 2012). The re­ et al., 2017). Furthermore, the bootstrap technique embedded in
sults indicate that the pathological variance inflation factor (VIF) was PLS-SEM is superior to the causal-step approach and the Sobel test in
below the 3.3 threshold (ranged from 1.282 to 2.778) for all constructs, analyzing the mediating effects (Nitzl et al., 2016). Second, we per­
confirming that CMB was not an issue in this study. formed fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to under­
stand the sufficient combinations of factors (causal recipes) for high SE
5.2. Measures adoption. fsQCA is an asymmetric approach that leverages Boolean logic
to identify multiple pathways leading to a certain outcome, in contrast
All survey instruments were developed based on existing scales from to traditional symmetric approaches (e.g., regression and SEM) which
the literature with minor modifications in wording to suit them to the only permit the analysis of a single path or net effect of individual an­
target context. Motivations of the SE were operationalized as a higher- tecedents (Woodside, 2013). Since the high complexity of firms’
order construct composed of four lower-order constructs related to decision-making can be captured by using fsQCA, the synergistic effect
benefits. The measures for financial benefits (4 items) were adapted of these antecedent factors on SE adoption intention were assessed to
from Lee et al. (2018) and Raguseo (2018); sustainability benefits (5 complement the insights gleaned from net effect analysis.
items) were drawn from Hamari et al. (2016); social benefits and
reciprocal benefits (4 items) were taken from Hsu and Lin (2008). Bar­ 6.1. Results of PLS-SEM
riers of the SE were also operationalized as a higher-order construct
composed of four lower-order constructs. The measures for perceived 6.1.1. Assessment of the reflective measurement model
risks (3 items) were adapted from So et al. (2018) and Yi et al. (2020); The psychometric properties of the ten reflective (lower-order)
lack of trust (platform) (5 items) were derived from Lu et al. (2012); lack constructs were evaluated by means of internal consistency reliability,
of trust (service provider) (5 items) were taken from Yang et al. (2019); convergent validity, and discriminant validity. For a scrutiny of the in­
and lack of regulatory support (3 items) were borrowed from Wong ternal consistency reliability, we referred to Dijkstra-Henseler’s rho
et al. (2019). Top management support was measured using a 4-item (pA), a substitute for the classic Cronbach’s alpha and the more liberal
scale from Liang et al. (2007) and Wong et al. (2019). Finally, adop­ composite reliability (Hair et al., 2019). As listed in Table 3, all rhos
tion intention was measured using a 2-item 7-point semantic differential exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.7 (Henseler et al., 2016),
scale, with the words ‘unlikely/likely’ and ‘impossible/possible’ offered implying satisfactory construct reliability. Convergent validity is also
alongside each statement (Dabholkar and Bagozzi, 2002). Meanwhile, established as the indicator loadings and the average variance extracted
all constructs were evaluated on a 7-point Likert scale (1=strongly (AVE) of all reflective (lower-order) constructs were above 0.708 and
disagree, 7-strongly agree), except adoption intention. The question­ 0.5, respectively (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2017). To
naire was translated into Chinese and then back-translated to ensure the determine discriminant validity, we applied the heterotrait-monotrait
accuracy of the item meaning. ratio of correlations (HTMT) criterion (Henseler et al., 2015). As
evident in Table 4, all HTMT values were below the 0.85 threshold,
meaning that discriminant validity is established.

Table 2 6.1.2. Assessment of the formative measurement model

Sample characteristics. A two-stage approach was applied to estimate the reflective-
Characteristics Frequency Percentage formative higher-order constructs (i.e., motivations and constraints),
whereby the latent variable scores for the lower-order constructs ob­
Firm size (number of employees)
≤500 88 69.3
tained from the repeated indicator approach in stage one was used as
501-1,000 12 9.4 formative indicators for the higher-order constructs in stage two (Sar­
1,001-2,000 17 13.4 stedt et al., 2019). In order to validate the higher-order constructs, we
>2,000 10 7.9 assess the collinearity between formative indicators. As shown in
Total annual revenue (USD, millions)
Table 4, the variance inflation factors of all formative indicators were
≤100 89 70.1
101-500 22 17.3 below the 3.3 threshold (Hair et al., 2017), thus precluding the possi­
501-1,000 9 7.1 bility of multicollinearity issues. Next, we ran bootstrapping on the
>1,000 7 5.5 model with 5,000 subsamples to determine the significance and rele­
Firm age vance of the indicator weights. As evident in Table 5, all indicator
81 63.8
weights were significant at the p < 0.05 level, thus attesting to their
≤10
11-20 38 29.9
21-30 5 3.9 contribution to the respective constructs.
>30 3 2.4
Industry 6.1.3. Assessment of the structural model
Manufacturing 38 29.9
To assess the significance of the hypothesized relationships, we
Construction 39 30.7
Logistics and distribution 50 39.4 employed a non-parametric, bias-corrected bootstrap procedure with
Respondent job title 5,000 subsamples and 95 percent confidence intervals (Hair et al.,
Owner/Managing director/President/Vice-president/ 71 55.9 2017). The results (Table 6, Fig. 3) show that motivations (β=0.389,
CEO p<0.01) have a positive effect on SE adoption intention, whereas con­
Senior manager 56 44.1
straints have a negative effect on it (β=-0.372, p<0.01). Thus, H1 and

9
S.H.-W. Chuah et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 175 (2021) 105892

Table 3 Table 3 (continued )

Results for reflective (lower-order) constructs. Constructs/Items Loadings rho AVE
Constructs/Items Loadings rho AVE (ρA)
(ρA)
Asset sharing is a sustainable mode of consumption. 0.848
Adoption intention 0.938 0.942 Asset sharing is ecological. 0.880
In the future, would your company intend to adopt Asset sharing is efficient in terms of using resources. 0.882
the sharing economy? Asset sharing is environmentally friendly (e.g., 0.860
Unlikely…Likely 0.971 reduce CO2 emissions).
Impossible…Possible 0.971 Top management support 0.791 0.609
Financial benefits 0.911 0.759 The top management of your company would 0.777
Asset sharing is cheaper than other options 0.925 allocate resources necessary for the asset sharing.
available in the market. The top management of your company would 0.753
Asset sharing would reduce your company’s 0.929 support the asset sharing.
operating costs. The top management of your company would be 0.807
Asset sharing would generate extra income for your 0.767 enthusiastic about the asset sharing.
company by renting out the underutilized assets. The top management of your company is willing to 0.784
Asset sharing would increase your company’s 0.854 take risks involved in the asset sharing.
return on investment.
Lack of regulatory support 0.851 0.763
There is a lack of legal protection for asset sharing 0.889 H2 were supported. In support of H3, the indirect effect of motivations
among companies. on SE adoption intention through top management support is significant
The laws and regulations that exist nowadays are 0.890
(β=0.138, p<0.01) and the bootstrap confidence interval is above zero
insufficient to protect asset sharing among
companies. (0.071-0.236). In contrast, the indirect effect of constraints on SE
There is a lack of government policies to support the 0.840 adoption intention through top management support does not reach
growth of the sharing economy. significance (β=-0.003, p>0.05), thus not providing support for H4. The
Lack of trust (platform) 0.897 0.692 results also show that all three control variables have no significant ef­
There is a doubt if the online sharing platforms have 0.720
adequate mechanisms in place to protect
fects on SE adoption intention. Finally, we employed the blindfolding
customer privacy. procedure with a pre-specified distance of 7 to obtain the predictive
There is a doubt if the online sharing platforms have 0.886 relevance values (Q2). The Q2 values for top management support
adequate in place to protect customers against (0.256) and adoption intention (0.707) were above zero, thus providing
security threats.
evidence for predictive relevance.
There is a doubt if the online sharing platforms can 0.843
stop deceptive/ fraudulent practices effectively.
There is a doubt if the reputation mechanisms 0.845
6.2. Results of fSQCA
(rating and review systems) of the online sharing
platforms are reliable.
There is a doubt if the online sharing platforms are 0.856 We further employed the fSQCA to examine the synergistic effects of
trustworthy. multiple factors on an outcome. According to user’s guide of fsQCA
Lack of trust (service provider) 0.925 0.758 (Ragin, 2017), data calibration, construction of truth table, and analysis
There is a doubt if the service providers are 0.868
trustworthy.
of causal conditions are necessary steps in data analysis procedure. In
There is a doubt if the service providers are not 0.861 the first step, we transform ordinary data into fuzzy sets by setting the
opportunistic. original values from Likert scales to correspond to specifications of full
There is a doubt if the service providers are honest 0.879 membership (i.e., fuzzy score = 0.95), cross-over anchors (i.e., fuzzy
in their dealing with us.
score = 0.50), and full non-membership (i.e., fuzzy score = 0.05) based
There is a doubt if the service providers will keep 0.888
their promises to us. on Kallmuenzer et al. (2019). The next step focuses on constructing the
There is a doubt if the service providers are 0.855 truth table to generate the different combinations of causal conditions
concerned about our welfares, not just their own. that are sufficient for achieving high adoption intention by specifying
Reciprocal benefits 0.929 0.785 the consistent cutoff value as 0.95 and the number-of-cases threshold as
Asset sharing could be mutually helpful. 0.905
Asset sharing could be advantageous to your 0.899
2. Finally, we employ standard analysis to obtain the “intermediate
company and others. solution” (i.e., partial logical remainders are incorporated into the so­
Asset sharing could enhance reciprocal benefits. 0.920 lution) in order to identify causal patterns that lead to high adoption
Asset sharing could create win-win situations. 0.817 intention.
Perceived risks 0.913 0.839
Table 7 and Fig. 4 summarize the results of the intermediate solu­
Whether renting the assets via the online sharing 0.880
platforms offers the money’s worth is uncertain. tions for high adoption intention. As shown, there are three causal
There is a high likelihood that the goods or services 0.966 configurations that lead to high adoption for the SE, supporting H5. The
being shared are of lower standard than expected. consistent values for each configuration and the overall solution are
Asset sharing is associated with the risk of loss or 0.900 above 0.75 (Ragin, 2017) and most coverage values range between
damage to personal assets.
Social connection benefits 0.866 0.689
0.228 and 0.647 (Woodside, 2013). This indicates that the model is
Asset sharing would expand the scope of association 0.772 informative. Since financial benefits and top management support
of your company with other companies. appear in all three solutions, they are considered as two core conditions
Asset sharing would create new business 0.839 for adoption, a kind of hygiene factors, whose absence often inhibit
relationships with other companies.
adoption intention, but whose sole presence cannot stimulate adoption.
Asset sharing would create strong relationships 0.828
with other companies that have common interests Solution 1 suggests that under the condition of low regulatory support,
or goals. high SE adoption can be attained through high perceived benefits
Asset sharing would draw fruitful collaborations 0.878 (financial, social, and reciprocal), trust (platform and service provider),
with other companies in the future. top management support, and low risks. Solution 2 reveals that in the
Sustainability benefits 0.921 0.754
Asset sharing would help save your company’s 0.870
case of high regulatory support, low levels of reciprocal benefits and
resource use. trust, combined with high levels of perceived benefits (financial, sus­
tainability, social connection), perceived risks, and top management
support can achieve high SE adoption. Solution 3 indicates that

10
S.H.-W. Chuah et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 175 (2021) 105892

Table 4
Discriminant validity.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

[Link]
[Link] 0.810
[Link] 0.670 0.616
[Link] 0.743 0.570 0.536
[Link] 0.758 0.699 0.753 0.635
[Link] 0.454 0.418 0.309 0.377 0.450
[Link] 0.790 0.796 0.575 0.521 0.676 0.379
[Link] 0.762 0.798 0.520 0.507 0.486 0.237 0.718
[Link] 0.742 0.631 0.796 0.707 0.676 0.254 0.555 0.586
[Link] 0.602 0.554 0.817 0.422 0.560 0.170 0.513 0.475 0.810

Notes: AI=Adoption intention; FB=Financial benefits; RB=Reciprocal benefits; RISK=Perceived risks; RS=Lack of regulatory support; SOCB=Social connection
benefits; SUSB=Sustainability benefits; TMS=Top management support; TRUSTP=Lack of trust (platform); TRUSTS=Lack of trust (service provider).

constraints), fsQCA reveals the existence of multiple realities (i.e., three

Table 5
solutions) in achieving the desired outcome. These findings correspond
Results of the formative higher-order constructs.
to the principle of equifinality, which posits that the same outcome can
Higher-order Formative indicators Outer t-value VIF be achieved through more than one complex configuration of ante­
constructs weights
cedent conditions (Ragin, 2000). Concurring with the principle of causal
Motivations Financial benefits 0.393 16.292 2.358 asymmetry, fsQCA suggests that the same attribute (e.g., social
Sustainability benefits 0.376 16.379 2.217
connection benefits, reciprocal benefits, perceived risks, lack of trust
Social connection 0.170 3.637 1.175
benefits
(platform), lack of trust (service provider), and lack of regulatory sup­
Reciprocal benefits 0.300 13.272 1.542 port) within different solutions can have opposite effects on the inten­
Constraints Perceived risks 0.316 15.893 1.895 tion to adopt the SE, depending on how they combine or interact with
Lack of trust 0.327 20.614 2.257 other attributes. What is more, the absence or negation of some moti­
(platform)
vating factors can lead to high adoption intention, whereas the presence
Lack of trust 0.268 13.988 2.311
(service provider) of some constraining factors can also lead to the similar outcomes,
Lack of regulatory 0.304 15.443 1.720 depending on how they are configured with other factors. For instance,
support solution 2 suggests that high perceived risks and distrust (platform and
service provider) can boost firms’ intention to adopt the SE, provided
that the levels of financial benefits, sustainability benefits, social
perceived high benefits (except for social connection benefits), trust, top
connection benefits, regulatory support and top management support
management support, and low risks are crucial to stimulate SE adoption,
are high, even when the level of reciprocal benefits are low. Likewise,
regardless of regulatory support. Furthermore, Table 7 shows that the
solution 3 indicates that low social connection benefits can lead to high
presence of certain motivational attributes (i.e., social connection ben­
adoption for SE, provided that the levels of perceived risks is low, while
efits and reciprocal benefits) can lead to high adoption intention, but the
the levels of financial benefits, sustainability benefits, reciprocal bene­
absence or negation of the same attribute can equally lead to the desired
fits, trust (platform and service provider), and top management support
outcome, depending on how they combine with other attributes to form
are high. While PLS-SEM can verify the predetermined relationships
a solution. These findings support H6.
between antecedent factors and outcome of interest, it cannot ascertain
such insights.
6.3. Comparing PLS-SEM and fSQCA results
7. Discussion and implications
Our PLS-SEM analysis suggest motivating factors can foster firms’
intention to adopt the SE, while constraining factors can inhibit it. Our study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, we
Notably, top management support plays a mediating role between mo­ theoretically contribute to the emerging literature on the SE by pro­
tivations and adoption intention. As for fsQCA results, financial benefits posing a holistic adoption model for the SE in the B2B context. Prior
and top management support can be viewed as core conditions for studies on the SE adoption mainly focused on the B2C market (e.g., So
adoption since these two variables are present in all solutions. These et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2018; Yi et al., 2020). To the best of our
findings are line with the PLS-SEM analysis, which identifies financial knowledge, this study is the first to utilize multiple theories, namely
benefits as the most important contributor to motivations and top DOI, TOE framework, and SET to better understand the factors moti­
management support has a positive effect on adoption intention. How­ vating and constraining the adoption of the SE among firms. This study
ever, some results we obtain from fSQCA contradict those obtained from also provides insights into the complexity of formulation of the SE
PLS-SEM. For example, while PLS-SEM pinpoints a single optimal to adoption decisions among firms by assessing the interplay between
achieve high adoption for the SE (i.e., increase motivations and reduce

Table 6
Results of hypotheses testing.
Hyp. Relationships В SE t-value 95% confidence intervals Remarks

H1 Motivations→Intention to adopt 0.389 0.096 4.073 [0.184, 0.557] Supported

H2 Constraints→Intention to adopt -0.372 0.076 4.917 [-0.530, -0.233] Supported
H3 Motivations→Top management support 0.650 0.099 6.547 [0.447, 0.841] Supported
H4 Constraints→Top management support -0.014 0.119 0.121 [-0.246, 0.218] Not supported
H5 Top management support→Intention to adopt 0.212 0.052 4.087 [0.114, 0.319] Supported
H6 Motivations→Top management support→Intention to adopt 0.138 0.041 3.380 [0.071, 0.236] Supported
H7 Constraints→Top management support→Intention to adopt -0.003 0.025 0.120 [-0.054, 0.047] Not supported

11
S.H.-W. Chuah et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 175 (2021) 105892

Fig. 3. Results for structural model.

Notes: An ellipse with a solid line represents the presence of the condition, whereas an ellipse with a dotted line represents the absence or negation of the condition. If
a condition is irrelevant to the configuration, no ellipse is displayed.

received little attention in the SE literature, it has emerged in our study

Table 7 as a salient motivating factor. This finding aligns with that of Starr Jr
Intermediate solutions of high intention to adopt SE.
et al. (2020), who reported that reciprocity is fundamental to inter-firm
Configuration Solution relationships that are exchange-based. Such “pseudo sharing” is distinct
1 2 3
from “true sharing” that involves non-reciprocal and monetary exchange
Motivations (Belk, 2014a). In line with Govindan et al’s (2020) study, our findings
Financial benefits ● ● ● show that the lack of trust toward the platform and service provider
Sustainability benefits
constitute the major hurdle to the implementation of the SE in the B2B
● ●
Social connection benefits ● ● ○

Reciprocal benefits ● ○ ● setting. So et al. (2018) and Tussyadiah and Pesonen (2018) also re­
Constraints ported that distrust in the technology and host deter consumers from
Perceived risks ○ ● ○
choosing Airbnb. In line with SET, perceived risks (performance, phys­
Lack of trust (platform) ●
ical, and monetary) have been found as constraints for adopting B2B SE.
○ ○

Lack of trust (service provider) ●

This finding complements the study by Lee et al. (2018), who demon­
○ ○

Lack of regulatory support ● ○

Top management support ● ● ● strated that privacy and security risks have a negative impact on con­
Consistency 0.987 0.963 0.992 sumers’ intention to use Uber. Although Wong et al. (2019) showed that
Raw coverage 0.552 0.228 0.366 regulatory support is an insignificant decisive factor, our PLS-SEM re­
Unique coverage 0.231 0.042 0.053
Overall solution consistency 0.975
sults reveal that the lack of regulatory support is an important constraint
Overall solution coverage 0.647 for adopting B2B SE. This finding is in agreement with previous works
on big data (Sun et al., 2020) and e-business adoption (Zhu and
Notes: Black circles “●” indicate the presence of causal conditions (i.e., ante­
Kraemer, 2005).
cedents). White circles “○” indicate the absence or negation of causal conditions.
The blank cells represent “don’t care” conditions.
Second, we contribute a better understanding of the SE adoption
process in the B2B context by considering the mediating role of top
management support. The TOE framework has implicitly assumed that
motivation and constraint attributes as well as top management support.
top management support is an organizational factor in parallel with
Through the application of both symmetric (PLS-SEM) and asymmetric
other technological and environmental factors. However, our PLS-SEM
(fSQCA) approaches, this study makes a broader methodological
results show that motivations not only influence SE adoption directly,
contribution to the SE research.
but also indirectly through top management support. Support for our
Concurred with prior studies in the B2C domain (e.g., Hamari et al.,
proposition that top management support mediates the effect of con­
2016; Tussyadiah and Pesonen, 2018), our PLS-SEM results suggest that
straints on SE adoption was not evident. On the contrary, our results
firms participate in the SE not only for financial benefits (cost-saving),
indicate that constraints deter firms from adopting the SE directly. These
but also for sustainability (e.g., waste reduction) and social reasons (e.g.,
findings partially support that top managers act as an internal human
network building). These findings are largely consistent with the triple
agency, translating external forces into actionable behavior (Liang et al.,
bottom line model of sustainability, which focuses on the planet, people,
2007).
and profits (Elkington, 1998). Although reciprocal benefits have
Third, our fsQCA results shed further insights that contribute to a

12
S.H.-W. Chuah et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 175 (2021) 105892

Fig. 4. Causal configurations for high adoption intention.

more fine-grained understanding of the complex causal patterns of 7.1. Practical implications
motivation and constraint attributes as well as top management support,
thus complementing the analysis of net effects. Our fSQCA results Our findings are of practical significance to SE companies and policy
indicated that financial benefits and top management support are core makers. As financial and sustainable benefits emerged as significant
but not sufficient conditions for adoption. Other attributes are neither motivations in the PLS-SEM analysis, SE companies can position them­
core nor sufficient to achieve the outcome when they are considered selves as having a cost advantage and being “green” by providing a
individually. In general, the findings support the assertion that the SE is sustainable solution for underutilized assets. In this vein, they can
a complex phenomenon (Gurău and Ranchhod, 202; Muñoz and Cohen, employ evidence-based strategies to convince firms that asset sharing
2017; Pappas, 2017). In order for adoption to be successful, those can lead to improved financial performance as a result of lower oper­
motivation and constraint attributes as well as top management support ating costs and faster turnover while, at the same time, reducing waste
must be properly aligned. While some previous studies revealed that and environmental degradation compared to traditional leasing busi­
perceived risks or distrust are important obstacles negatively affecting nesses. Notably, the sustainability aspect of SE is rather difficult for
consumer attitude and behavioral intention toward the SE (Lee et al., leasing companies to replicate. As guanxi is deeply embedded in Chinese
2018; Tussyadiah and Pesonen, 2018), others found these effects to be society, reciprocal benefits play a crucial role in firm decision-making
insignificant (e.g., Amaro et al., 2019; So et al., 2018). Our fSQCA results and therefore SE companies must incorporate this cultural norm into
revealed that the presence or absence of perceived risks and distrust their business strategies. For example, they can establish a clear policy
(platform and service provider) can equally lead to high adoption on the reciprocation terms and conditions. This would help avoid
intention, depending on how they combine with other causal conditions. opportunistic behaviors for the exchange of rewards that are hardly
For example, solution 1 suggests that when perceived risks and distrust quantifiable and monetizable. Recognizing that firms also seek social
(platform and service provider) are low, high adoption intention can be benefits from participating in the SE, SE companies can host networking
achieved through high financial benefits, social connection benefits, events for consumers and service providers to interact and build rapport.
reciprocal benefits, top management support and low regulatory sup­ Particularly for small firms, this will not only expose their products to
port. On the other hand, solution 2 suggests that when perceived risks potential new customers, but also expand their networks and open up
and distrust (platform and service provider) are high, high regulatory new opportunities for collaboration. Furthermore, as top managers are
support, financial benefits, sustainability benefits, social connection the main decision-makers for the adoption of innovation practices, SE
benefits, top management support, and low reciprocal benefits can companies can share with them previous success stories of SE in helping
stimulate the adoption intention. These findings help reconcile the other firms achieve better triple bottom line (TBL) results.
inconclusive evidence on the factors influencing the SE adoption. Perceived risks, distrust in the platform and the service provider, as
Fourth, determining the factors that influence B2B SE adoption in the well as regulatory challenges are identified as constraining factors to
Chinese context can yield meaningful insights into business culture and B2B SE adoption in the PLS-SEM analysis. Due to its innovativeness,
practices. Influenced by a strong Confucian culture, Chinese businesses different risk management approaches and insurance solutions may be
emphasize reciprocity and maintaining guanxi, running in contrast to required to increase firms’ confidence in this business model. For
social exchanges in Western societies (Dobrucalı, 2020). People in the example, SE companies can develop privacy protection mechanisms,
West tend to draw a clear line between personal and business relation­ take appropriate security measures, and provide money-back guarantee
ships; hence, interpersonal guanxi could not be used to govern the to protect firms against the risk of receiving goods with unsatisfactory
inter-firm relationships as in the case of China (Geng et al., 2017; Lin, performance and fraudulent activities. Apart from the self-verification of
2011). The findings of our fsQCA suggest that even if the level of reg­ a provider’s identify, third-party certification and reputation score may
ulatory support is low, the possibility of Chinese firms in adopting the SE be helpful to instill firms’ trust in the SE. For the providers of assets or
can still be high provided that they can derive financial, social and services, fear of property theft or damage may hinder them from
reciprocal benefits, perceive low risks, trust both the platform and ser­ participating in the SE. SE companies should work with insurance
vice provider, and receive support from top management. Having said companies on the property protection policy to mitigate providers’ risks.
that, reciprocal benefits become less influential when regulatory support Our fsQCA results offer richer insights into the complex trade-off
is high. Instead, a combination of multiple benefits (financial, sustain­ effects among motivation and constraint attributes than does PLS-SEM
ability, social), risks, distrust (platform and service provider), and top analysis. More importantly, it offers multiple solutions that could lead
management support are essential ingredients for SE adoption. to high adoption for the SE, despite the associated risks and drawbacks.
This in turn help managers cope with the legislative challenges of SE and

13
S.H.-W. Chuah et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 175 (2021) 105892

make more informed decisions. The derived pathways suggest that more CRediT authorship contribution statement
than one causal configuration exist for high adoption intention. Inter­
estingly, some constraint attributes contribute positively to adoption Stephanie Hui-Wen Chuah: Writing – original draft, Writing – re­
intention, whereas other motivation attributes contribute negatively to view & editing. Ming-Lang Tseng: Conceptualization. Kuo-Jui Wu:
it, depending on their combination. For example, our findings suggest Data curation. Cheng-Feng Cheng: Methodology.
that even in the absence of government policy regulating the SE, firms
may have high intentions to participate in asset sharing if they can ac­
Declaration of Competing Interest
quire high benefits (financial, social connection, and reciprocal) and top
management support, and have low perceptions of risks and distrust. In
The authors declares that there is no conflict of interest.
light of this, the Chinese SE companies can rely on guanxi to alleviate
concerns over the lack of legal protection in B2B transactions. The
reciprocal policies of SE companies should emphasize mutual obliga­ References
tions, assurance, understanding, and indebtedness. Instead of using the
Acquier, A., Daudigeos, T., Pinkse, J., 2017. Promises and paradoxes of the sharing
two-way, reciprocal rating systems that may create upward bias (Starr Jr economy: an organizing framework. Technol. Forecas. Soc. 125, 1–10.
et al., 2020), SE companies should encourage suppliers/providers and Alsaad, A., Mohamad, R., Ismail, N.A., 2017. The moderating role of trust in business to
requesters/seekers to reciprocate by engaging in meaningful collabo­ business electronic commerce (B2B EC) adoption. Comput. Hum. Behav. 68,
157–169.
rations. One way to do so is to highlight the mutually beneficial out­ Amaro, S., Andreu, L., Huang, S., 2019. Millenials’ intentions to book on Airbnb. Curr.
comes (e.g., improved performance) both parties can obtain by Issues Tour. 22 (18), 2284–2298.
collaborating with their business partners or competitors — what they Autenteq, 2020. Identity Verification in the Sharing Economy Done Right - Don’t Treat
Honest, People Like Criminals. Available at. [Link]
referred to as coopetition. A notable example of coopetition is that be­ ation-in-the-sharing-economy-done-right-dont-treat-honest-people-like-criminals.
tween Ford and General Motors, whereby they teamed up to design two Accessed 15 April.
new automatic transmissions (a nine-speed and a 10-speed) to battle Belk, R., 2014a. Sharing versus pseudo-sharing in Web 2.0. Anthropol 18 (1), 7–23.
Belk, R., 2014b. You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption
over stiff fuel-economy regulations. Such partnerships enable the com­
online. J. Bus. Res. 67 (8), 1595–1600.
panies to share the high costs of inventing the complex, high-tech Bellon, T., 2020. Uber’s Challenge to Balance Driver Safety with Customer Privacy.
hardware without losing their brand identities in the eyes of con­ Available at. [Link]
s-challenge-to-balance-driver-safety-with-customer-privacy-idUSKBN20X187.
sumers. Once the hardware is designed, the companies break up to
Accessed 7 May.
develop control software for the transmissions in an independent way. Benjaafar, S., Kong, G., Li, X., Courcoubetis, C., 2019. Peer-to-peer product sharing:
This helps them to customize the parts to their vehicles while keeping implications for ownership, usage, and social welfare in the sharing economy.
privileged information to themselves (Harvard Law School, 2017). Manage. Sci. 65 (2), 477–493.
Benoit, S., Baker, T.L., Bolton, R.N., Gruber, T., Kandampully, J., 2017. A triadic
Indeed, a study by Cygler et al. (2018) found that in the area of pro­ framework for collaborative consumption (CC): motives, activities and resources &
duction and service context, coopetition lasting between one and three capabilities of actors. J. Bus. Res. 79, 219–227.
years had more than a 50 percent chance of gaining access to new re­ Blau, P.M., 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. John Wiley, New York.
Boateng, H., Kosiba, J.P.B., Okoe, A.F., 2019. Determinants of consumers’ participation
sources. If the duration of coopetition is between three and five years, in the sharing economy. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. M. 31 (2), 718–733.
there will be an advantage in the form of strong market position and the Böcker, L., Meelen, T., 2017. Sharing for people, planet or profit? Analysing motivations
expansion of the scale of its operations. One can expect the reduction of for intended sharing economy participation. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 23, 28–39.
Brooks, C., 2017. The State of the B2B Sharing Economy. Available at. [Link]
costs for coopetition lasts more than seven years. On the whole, while SE [Link]/articles/b2b-sharing-economy/ (Accessed 15 December 2019).
companies can choose the optimal mix of motivations and constraints to Chen, D., Lai, F., Lin, Z., 2014. A trust model for online peer-to-peer lending: a lender’s
target their customers, their priority should always be given to financial perspective. Inf. Tech. Man. 15 (4), 239–254.
Cheng, M., 2016. Sharing economy: a review and agenda for future research. Int. J. Hosp.
benefits and top management support.
Manag. 57, 60–70.
Clohessy, T., Acton, T., 2019. Investigating the influence of organizational factors on
blockchain adoption. Ind. Manage. Data Syst. 119 (7), 1457–1491.
Cocquyt, A., Crucke, S., Slabbinck, H., 2020. Organizational characteristics explaining
7.2. Limitations and future research participation in sustainable business models in the sharing economy: evidence from
the fashion industry using conjoint analysis. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 29 (6),
This study, while making significant contributions to the SE litera­ 2603–2613.
Cropanzano, R., Mitchell, M.S., 2005. Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary
ture, is not without limitations. First, this study focuses only on the B2B
review. J. Manage. 31 (6), 874–900.
SE adoption from the potential firm perspective. Future research should Cygler, J., Sroka, W., Solesvik, M., Dębkowska, K., 2018. Benefits and drawbacks of
conduct a comparative study to identify differences in the factors coopetition: the roles of scope and durability in coopetitive relationships. Sustain 10
influencing adopter (vs. non-adopter) and B2C (vs. B2B) intention to (8), 2688.
Dabholkar, P.A., Bagozzi, R.P., 2002. An attitudinal model of technology-based self-
participate in the SE. Second, although the sample of this study is limited service: moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factors. J. Acad.
to China, it allows us to control for various exogenous factors and thus Market. Sci. 30 (3), 184–201.
increase internal validity. To enhance the generalizability of the find­ Davlembayeva, D., Papagiannidis, S., Alamanos, E., 2019. Reciprocity and social
exchange in the sharing economy. In: Conference on e-Business, e-Services and e-
ings, future research might test our model in different countries or cul­ Society. Cham. Springer, pp. 559–569.
tures. Cross-cultural analysis is also recommended. Third, this study Davlembayeva, D., Papagiannidis, S., Alamanos, E., 2020. Sharing economy: studying
categorizes the motivations of B2B SE in accordance with theTPL model, the social and psychological factors and the outcomes of social exchange. Technol.
Forecas. Soc. 158, 120143.
hence functional benefits are not considered here. Given the lack of De Canio, F., Nieto-García, M., Martinelli, E., Pellegrini, D., 2020. The motives behind
pertinent literature, future researchers are advised to develop a scale for consumers’ intention to use peer-to-peer accommodation: an fsQCA application. Int.
measuring functional benefits in the B2B SE context based on a quali­ J. Contemp. Hosp. M. 32 (9), 2969–2989.
DHL Trend Research, 2017. Sharing Economy Logistics. Rethinking Logistics with Access
tative study. Fourth, future research could extend our model by Over Ownership. Available at. [Link]
considering moderator variables such as organizational culture, inter­ oads/interim/preview/updates/[Link].
organizational relationships, and environment dynamics. Finally, this Accessed 9 March 2020.
Dillahunt, T.R., Malone, A.R., 2015. The promise of the sharing economy among
study typifies the complementary use of symmetric (linear) and asym­
disadvantaged communities. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on
metric (non-linear) techniques to glean more nuanced and detailed in­ Human Factors in Computing Systems, p. 2285—2294.
sights into the complex causal patterns between antecedent conditions Dobrucalı, B., 2020. The role of Guanxi on international business-to-business
and an outcome of interest. While such an approach still in its infancy in relationships: a systematic review and future directions. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 35 (7),
1125–1140.
the SE research, future research could combine the fsQCA with other Duarte, P., Pinho, J.C., 2019. A mixed methods UTAUT2-based approach to assess mobile
methods, such as grounded theory, case study, or Bayesian modeling. health adoption. J. Bus. Res. 102, 140–150.

14
S.H.-W. Chuah et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 175 (2021) 105892

Dwyer, F.R., Tanner, J.F., 2006. Business Marketing: Connecting Strategy, Relationships, Kock, N., Lynn, G., 2012. Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based
and Learning, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Boston. SEM: an illustration and recommendations. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 13 (7), 546–580.
Elkington, J., 1998. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Kumar, V., Lahiri, A., Dogan, O.B., 2018. A strategic framework for a profitable business
Business. New Society Publishers, Stony Creek, United Kingdom. model in the sharing economy. Ind. Market. Manag. 69, 147–160.
Featherman, M.S., Pavlou, P.A., 2003. Predicting e-services adoption: a perceived risk Lai, M.K., Ho, A.P., 2020. Unravelling potentials and limitations of sharing economy in
facets perspective. Int. J. Hum-Comput. St. 59 (4), 451–474. reducing unnecessary consumption: a social science perspective. Resour. Conserv.
Fernandez, H.A., 2019. China Companies Worst in Asia for Environmental Sustainability, Recycl. 153, 104546.
Hong Kong Firms Fare Best—Report. Available at. [Link] Lamberton, C.P., Rose, R.L., 2012. When is ours better than mine? A framework for
/news/china-companies-worst-in-asia-for-environmental-sustainability-hong-kong understanding and altering participation in commercial sharing systems.
-firms-fare-best-report/. Accessed 8 March 2020. J. Marketing 76 (4), 109–125.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable Laukkanen, M., Tura, N., 2020. The potential of sharing economy business models for
variables and measurement error. J. Marketing Res. 18 (1), 39–50. sustainable value creation. J. Clean. Prod 253, 120004.
Frenken, K., Schor, J., 2019. Putting the sharing economy into perspective. Env. Innov. Lee, Z.W., Chan, T.K., Balaji, M.S., Chong, A.Y.L., 2018. Why people participate in the
Soc. Transit. 23, 3–10. sharing economy: an empirical investigation of Uber. Internet Res. 28 (3), 829–850.
Ganter, A., Hecker, A., 2014. Configurational paths to organizational innovation: Lee, D., Pae, J.H., Wong, Y.H., 2001. A model of close business relationships in China
qualitative comparative analyses of antecedents and contingencies. J. Bus. Res. 67 (guanxi). Eur. J. Marketing 35 (1/2), 51–69.
(6), 1285–1292. Leischnig, A., Henneberg, S.C., Thornton, S.C., 2016. Net versus combinatory effects of
Geng, R., Mansouri, S.A., Aktas, E., Yen, D.A., 2017. The role of Guanxi in green supply firm and industry antecedents of sales growth. J. Bus. Res. 69 (9), 3576–3583.
chain management in Asia’s emerging economies: a conceptual framework. Ind. Li, Y., Ding, R., Cui, L., Lei, Z., Mou, J., 2019. The impact of sharing economy practices
Market. Manag. 63, 1–17. on sustainability performance in the Chinese construction industry. Resour. Conserv.
Gili, R.D., 2018. The Challenges of Regulation of the Sharing Economy. Available at. htt Recycl. 150, 104409.
ps://[Link]/en/challenges-regulation-sharing-economy. Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., Xue, Y., 2007. Assimilation of enterprise systems: the effect
Accessed 16 March 2020. of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Quart 31
Gössling, S., Hall, C.M, 2019. Sharing versus collaborative economy: how to align ICT (1), 59–87.
developments and the SDGs in tourism? J. Sustain. Tour. 27 (1), 74–96. Liang, L.J., Choi, H.C., Joppe, M., 2018. Exploring the relationship between satisfaction,
Govindan, K., Shankar, K.M., Kannan, D., 2020. Achieving sustainable development trust and switching intention, repurchase intention in the context of Airbnb. Int. J.
goals through identifying and analyzing barriers to industrial sharing economy: a Hosp. Manag. 69, 41–48.
framework development. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 227, 107575. Lin, L.H., 2011. Cultural and organizational antecedents of guanxi: the Chinese cases.
Grewal, D., Gotlieb, J., Marmorstein, H., 1994. The moderating effects of message J. Bus. Ethics 99 (3), 441–451.
framing and source credibility on the price-perceived risk relationship. J. Consum. Liu, Z., Min, Q., Zhai, Q., Smyth, R., 2016. Self-disclosure in Chinese micro-blogging: a
Res. 21 (1), 145–153. social exchange theory perspective. Inform Manage 53 (1), 53–63.
Grondys, K., 2019. Implementation of the sharing economy in the B2B sector. Sustain 11 Lu, B., Zeng, Q., Fan, W., 2016. Examining macro-sources of institution-based trust in
(14), 3976. social commerce marketplaces: an empirical study. Electron. Commer. R. A. 20,
Gurău, C., Ranchhod, A., 2020. The sharing economy as a complex dynamic system: 116–131.
exploring coexisting constituencies, interests and practices. J. Clean. Prod. 245, Lu, J., Wang, L., Hayes, L.A., 2012. How do technology readiness, platform functionality
118799. and trust influence C2C user satisfaction? J. Electron. Commer. Re. 13 (1), 50–69.
Guttentag, D., 2015. Airbnb: disruptive innovation and the rise of an informal tourism Lutz, C., Hoffmann, C.P., Bucher, E., Fieseler, C., 2018. The role of privacy concerns in
accommodation sector. Curr. Issues Tour. 18 (12), 1192–1217. the sharing economy. Inf. Com. Soc. 21 (10), 1472–1492.
Habibi, M.R., Davidson, A., Laroche, M., 2017. What managers should know about the Ma, Y., Zhang, H., 2019. Development of the sharing economy in China: challenges and
sharing economy. Bus. Horizons 60 (1), 113–121. lessons. In: Liu, K.C., Racherla, U.S. (Eds.), Innovation, Economic Development, and
Hahn, R., Ostertag, F., Lehr, A., Büttgen, M., Benoit, S., 2020. I like it, but I don’t use it”: Intellectual Property in India and China, Eds. Springer, Singapore, pp. 467–484.
impact of carsharing business models on usage intentions in the sharing economy. Mao, Z.E., Jones, M.F., Li, M., Wei, W., Lyu, J., 2020. Sleeping in a stranger’s home: a
Bus. Strateg. Environ. 29 (3), 1404–1418. trust formation model for Airbnb. J. Hosp. Tour. Manage. 42, 67–76.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2017. A Primer on Partial Least Martin, C.J, 2016. The sharing economy: a pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish
Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), second ed. Sage. Thousand Oaks, form of neoliberal capitalism? Ecol. Econ. 121, 149–159.
CA. Marukawa, T., 2017. Sharing economy in China and Japan. Jpn. Polit. Econ. 43 (1-4),
Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., 2019. When to use and how to report 61–78.
the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 31 (1), 2–24. Maslow, A.H., 1954. The instinctoid nature of basic needs. J. Pers. 22 (3), 326–347.
Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., Ukkonen, A., 2016. The sharing economy: why people Mayer, K.J., Sparrowe, R.T., 2013. Integrating theories in AMJ articles. Acad. Manage. J.
participate in collaborative consumption. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Tech. 67 (9), 2047–2059. 56 (4), 917–922.
Harvard Law School, 2017. Creating Value by Collaborating with Competitors. Available McKee, D., 2018. Peer platform markets and licensing regimes. In: McKee, D., Makela, F.,
at. [Link] Scassa, T., Tremblay-Huet, S. (Eds.), Law and the “Sharing Economy”: Regulating
borating-with-competitors-nb/. Accessed 21 January 2021. Online Market Platforms, Eds. University of Ottawa Press, Ottawa, pp. 17–54.
Henseler, J., Hubona, G., Ray, P.A., 2016. Using PLS path modeling in new technology Mi, Z., Coffman, D.M., 2019. The sharing economy promotes sustainable societies. Nat.
research: updated guidelines. Ind. Manage. Data Syst. 116 (1), 2–20. Commun. 10 (1), 1–3.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2015. A new criterion for assessing discriminant Möhlmann, M., 2015. Collaborative consumption: determinants of satisfaction and the
validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 43 (1), likelihood of using a sharing economy option again. J. Consum. Behav. 14 (3),
115–135. 193–207.
Henten, A.H., Windekilde, I.M., 2016. Transaction costs and the sharing economy. Info Munoz, P., Cohen, B., 2017. Mapping out the sharing economy: a configurational
18 (1), 1–15. approach to sharing business modeling. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 125, 21–37.
Homans, G.C., 1958. Social behavior as exchange. J. Sociol. 63 (6), 597–606. Nitzl, C., Roldan, J.L., Cepeda, G., 2016. Mediation analysis in partial least squares path
Homans, G.C., 1961. Human Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. Harcourt, Brace, New modeling helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models. Ind. Manage. Data
York. Syst. 116 (9), 1849–1864.
Hossain, M., 2020. Sharing economy: a comprehensive literature review. Int. J. Hosp. Oliveira, T., Thomas, M., Espadanal, M., 2014. Assessing the determinants of cloud
Manag. 87, 102470. computing adoption: an analysis of the manufacturing and services sectors. Inform.
Hsu, C.L., Lin, J.C.C., 2008. Acceptance of blog usage: the roles of technology Manage. 51 (5), 497–510.
acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation. Inform. Manage. 45 Olya, H.G., Akhshik, A., 2019. Tackling the complexity of the pro-environmental
(1), 65–74. behavior intentions of visitors to turtle sites. J. Travel Res. 58 (2), 313–332.
Hu, J., Liu, Y.L., Yuen, T.W.W., Lim, M.K., Hu, J., 2019. Do green practices really attract Ordanini, A., Parasuraman, A., Rubera, G., 2014. When the recipe is more important than
customers? The sharing economy from the sustainable supply chain management the ingredients: A qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) of service innovation
perspective. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 149, 177–187. configurations. J. Serv. Res. 17 (2), 134–149.
Hwang, J., 2019. Managing the innovation legitimacy of the sharing economy. Int. J. Pappas, I.O, 2018. User experience in personalized online shopping: a fuzzy-set analysis.
Qual. Innov. 5 (1), 1–21. Eur. J. Marketing 52 (7/8), 1679–1703.
Ifinedo, P., 2008. Impacts of business vision, top management support, and external Pappas, N., 2017. The complexity of purchasing intentions in peer-to-peer
expertise on ERP success. Bus. Process Manage. J. 14 (4), 551–568. accommodation. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. M. 29 (9), 2302–2321.
Ilin, V., Ivetić, J., Simić, D., 2017. Understanding the determinants of e-business Pappas, N., 2019. The complexity of consumer experience formulation in the sharing
adoption in ERP-enabled firms and non-ERP-enabled firms: a case study of the economy. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 77, 415–424.
Western Balkan Peninsula. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 125, 206–223. Paraskevaidis, P., Andriotis, K., 2017. Altruism in tourism: social exchange theory vs
Kallmuenzer, A., Kraus, S., Peters, M., Steiner, J., Cheng, C.F., 2019. Entrepreneurship in altruistic surplus phenomenon in host volunteering. Ann. Tourism Res. 62, 26–37.
tourism firms: a mixed-methods analysis of performance driver configurations. Tour. Paulssen, M., Roulet, R., 2017. Social bonding as a determinant of share of wallet and
Manage. 74, 319–330. cross-buying behaviour in B2B relationships. Eur. J. Marketing 51 (5/6), 1011–1028.
Kathan, W., Matzler, K., Veider, V., 2016. The sharing economy: your business model’s Plewnia, F., Guenther, E., 2018. Mapping the sharing economy for sustainability
friend or foe? Bus. Horizons 59 (6), 663–672. research. Manag. Decis. 56 (3), 570–583.
Köbis, N.C., Soraperra, I., Shalvi, S., 2021. The consequences of participating in the Proserpio, D., Xu, W., Zervas, G., 2018. You get what you give: theory and evidence of
sharing economy: a transparency-based sharing framework. J. Manage. 47 (1), reciprocity in the sharing economy. Quant. Mark. Eco. 16 (4), 371–407.
317–343.

15
S.H.-W. Chuah et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 175 (2021) 105892

PwC, 2015. The Sharing Economy: Consumer Intelligence Series. Available at. https Trivers, R.L, 1971. The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quart. Rev. Biol. 46 (1), 35–57.
://[Link]/us/en/industry/entertainment-media/publications/consumer- Tussyadiah, I.P., 2016. Factors of satisfaction and intention to use peer-to-peer
intelligence-series/assets/[Link]. Accessed 27 November accommodation. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 55, 70–80.
2019. Tussyadiah, I.P., Pesonen, J., 2016. Impacts of peer-to-peer accommodation use on travel
Ragin, C.C., 2017. User’s Guide to Fuzzy-Set/Qualitative Comparative Analysis. patterns. J. Travel Res. 55 (8), 1022–1040.
Available at. [Link] Tussyadiah, I.P., Pesonen, J., 2018. Drivers and barriers of peer-to-peer accommodation
pdf. Accessed 7 May 2020. stay-an exploratory study with American and Finnish travellers. Curr. Issues Tour. 21
Ragin, C.C, 2000. Fuzzy-Set Social Science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. (6), 703–720.
Raguseo, E., 2018. Big data technologies: an empirical investigation on their adoption, Tussyadiah, I.P., Zach, F., 2017. Identifying salient attributes of peer-to-peer
benefits and risks for firms. Int. J. Inform. Manage. 38 (1), 187–195. accommodation experience. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 34 (5), 636–652.
Rogers, E.M., 1983. Diffusion of Innovations, third ed. Free Press, New York. Voss, K.E., Tanner, E.C., Mohan, M., Lee, Y.K., Kim, H.K., 2019. Integrating reciprocity
Sarstedt, M., Hair Jr, J.F., Cheah, J.H., Becker, J.M., Ringle, C.M., 2019. How to specify, into a social exchange model of inter-firm B2B relationships. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 34
estimate, and validate higher-order constructs in PLS-SEM. Aus. Mark. J. 27 (3), (8), 1668–1680.
197–211. Wang, Y., Xiang, D., Yang, Z., Ma, S.S., 2019. Unraveling customer sustainable
Schor, J.B., Attwood-Charles, W., 2017. The “sharing” economy: labor, inequality, and consumption behaviors in sharing economy: a socio-economic approach based on
social connection on for-profit platforms. Sociol. Com. 11 (8), e12493. social exchange theory. J. Clean. Prod. 208, 869–879.
Shiau, W.L., Luo, M.M., 2012. Factors affecting online group buying intention and Wong, L.W., Leong, L.Y., Hew, J.J., Tan, G.W.H., Ooi, K.B., 2019. Time to seize the
satisfaction: a social exchange theory perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28 (6), digital evolution: adoption of blockchain in operations and supply chain
2431–2444. management among Malaysian SMEs. Int. J. Inform. Manage. 52, 101997.
Slagen, D., 2014. From P2P to B2B: The Next Phase of the Sharing Economy. Available at. Woodside, A.G., 2013. Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: calling
[Link] for adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data
aring-economy/. Accessed 12 October 2019. analysis and crafting theory. J. Bus. Res. 66 (4), 463–472.
So, K.K.F., Oh, H., Min, S., 2018. Motivations and constraints of Airbnb consumers: Xinhua, 2020. China’s Sharing Economy to Grow by up to 15 pct Annually: Report.
findings from a mixed-methods approach. Tour. Manage. 67, 224–236. Available at. [Link]
Spencer, H., 2012. Why Reciprocation is Ket to Building Business Relationships. htm. Accessed 6 May 2020.
Available at. [Link] Yang, S.B., Lee, K., Lee, H., Koo, C., 2019. In Airbnb we trust: understanding consumers’
rocation-is-key-to-building-business-relationships-0353558. Accessed 18 February trust-attachment building mechanisms in the sharing economy. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.
2021. 83, 198–209.
Starr Jr, R.G., Zhu, A.Q., Frethey-Bentham, C., Brodie, R.J, 2020. Peer-to-peer Yi, J., Yuan, G., Yoo, C., 2020. The effect of the perceived risk on the adoption of the
interactions in the sharing economy: exploring the role of reciprocity within a sharing economy in the tourism industry: the case of Airbnb. Inform. Process.
Chinese social network. Austral. Mark. J. 28 (3), 67–80. Manage. 57 (1), 102108.
Sthapit, E., Björk, P., 2019. Sources of distrust: Airbnb guests’ perspectives. Tour. Zhang, T.C., Gu, H., Jahromi, M.F., 2019. What makes the sharing economy successful?
Manage. Perspect. 31, 245–253. An empirical examination of competitive customer value propositions. Comput.
Sun, S., Hall, D.J., Cegielski, C.G., 2020. Organizational intention to adopt big data in the Hum. Behav. 95, 275–283.
B2B context: an integrated view. Ind. Market. Manag. 86, 109–121. Zhang, C.B., Li, Y.N., 2019. How social media usage influences B2B customer loyalty:
ter Huurne, M., Ronteltap, A., Corten, R., Buskens, V., 2017. Antecedents of trust in the roles of trust and purchase risk. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 34 (7), 1420–1433.
sharing economy: a systematic review. J. Consum. Behav. 16 (6), 485–498. Zhao, Z.Y., Zhao, X.J., Davidson, K., Zuo, J., 2012. A corporate social responsibility
Thakur, R., Srivastava, M., 2014. Adoption readiness, personal innovativeness, perceived indicator system for construction enterprises. J. Clean. Prod. 29, 277–289.
risk and usage intention across customer groups for mobile payment services in Zhu, K., Kraemer, K.L., 2005. Post-adoption variations in usage and value of e-business
India. Internet Res 24 (3), 369–392. by organizations: cross-country evidence from the retail industry. Inform. Syst. Res.
Tornatzky, L.G., Fleischer, M., 1990. The Processes of Technological Innovation. 16 (1), 61–84.
Lexington, MA.

16