sustainability

Article
Understanding How Consumers’ Perceived Sustainability
Influences Their Continuance Intention to Use Sharing
Economy Services
Shiu-Li Huang * and Yu-Ren Leau

Department of Business Administration, National Taipei University, No. 151, University Rd., San Shia District,
New Taipei City 237303, Taiwan
* Correspondence: slhuang@[Link]

Abstract: The sharing economy is beneficial for sustainable development. It effectively utilizes
underused resources and reduces unnecessary production, consumption, and waste through resource
sharing. This study investigates the factors that can increase consumers’ perceived sustainability of
a sharing economy service and examines the impact of perceived sustainability on their intentions
to continue using the service. Furthermore, the study considers the moderating effect of perceived
green transparency. Internet surveys are conducted to collect responses from users of a transportation
service (Uber) and an on-demand logistics service (Uber Eats). This study provides suggestions for
service providers in the sharing economy to develop sustainability strategies.

Keywords: sharing economy; perceived sustainability; perceived green transparency; continuance

intention

1. Introduction
In recent years, sustainability has become an important issue. Sustainable development
can be divided into environmental, social, and economic dimensions [1–3]. The main goals
Citation: Huang, S.-L.; Leau, Y.-R.
of sustainable development are environmental protection, social equality, and economic
Understanding How Consumers’
growth. Therefore, it is essential to improve economic development while enhancing
Perceived Sustainability Influences environmental protection and social development.
Their Continuance Intention to Use A sharing economy is built on online platforms to make better use of underused
Sharing Economy Services. assets. The sharing economy helps improve sustainability [2,4]. With people increasingly
Sustainability 2024, 16, 7753. accepting sharing economy services, prior studies have found that sustainability is a key
[Link] factor driving people to use sharing economy services [3,5,6]. However, only a few studies
have explored the antecedents of perceived sustainability. This study aims to bridge this
Academic Editor: Jun (Justin) Li
knowledge gap and explore the strategies that a sharing economy company can employ to
Received: 15 August 2024 heighten consumers’ perceptions of sustainability, thereby intensifying their intention to
Revised: 3 September 2024 use sharing economy services.
Accepted: 4 September 2024 This study explores the factors that determine consumers’ perceived sustainability
Published: 6 September 2024 of a sharing economy service and how this perception influences consumers’ intention
to continue using the service. The moderating effects of perceived green transparency
and the type of sharing economy service were also examined. The remainder of this
paper is organized as follows: The literature on the sharing economy and sustainability
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
is reviewed in Section 2. The research model and hypotheses are presented in Section 3.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
Section 4 describes the research methodology, and Section 5 presents the data analysis
This article is an open access article
results. Finally, we conclude with the research findings and theoretical and practical
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
implications in Section 6.
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
[Link]/licenses/by/
4.0/).

Sustainability 2024, 16, 7753. [Link] [Link]

Sustainability 2024, 16, 7753 2 of 16

2. Literature Review
2.1. Sharing Economy
The concept of sharing economy services emerged in the early 2000s, paralleling the
advancement of information and communication technology. This new business model
has fostered the proliferation of product and service sharing on online platforms. An
increasing number of companies are actively engaging in the sharing economy, implying
that not only individuals participate in the sharing of goods and services but also that
businesses join the shared economy to refrain from wasting energy and overconsumption.
GlobalNewsWire [7] reported that the market size of the sharing economy will reach USD
600 billion by 2027. The sharing economy is an umbrella term that includes a wide variety
of activities that aim to maximize the use of under-utilized assets, generally for a fee [8,9].
The sharing economy involves various types of transactions, including peer-to-peer (P2P),
business-to-consumer (B2C), and business-to-business (B2B) models [8]; among them, P2P
is the major business model [10].
The sharing economy has provided significant benefits to society; for example, Airbnb
and Uber are models with significant success [11]. The sharing economy can help ad-
dress various environmental and societal issues such as air pollution and excessive energy
consumption, foster interpersonal connections, enhance access to resources, and alleviate
poverty [10]. The sharing economy improves sustainability by reducing consumption
because sharing resources instead of individual ownership can help reduce resource deple-
tion. People use sharing platforms to rent assets and services to others to maximize the use
of assets and minimize unnecessary production, consumption, and waste.
Prior studies have shown that sustainability is a key factor that drives consumers
to participate in the sharing economy. Hamari et al. [10] argued that sustainability is
an intrinsic motivation that enhances consumers’ attitudes toward the sharing economy
and further increases their intention to participate in the sharing economy. Huang and
Kuo [12] reported that people with environmental consciousness have a favorable attitude
toward sharing idle assets in the sharing economy and thus have intentions to share.
Arteaga-Sánchez et al. [13] showed that the positive environmental impact of a sharing
economy service can increase consumers’ satisfaction and further increase their continuance
intentions. Gazzola et al. [14] and Llanos et al. [6] also confirmed that sustainability
has a positive and direct impact on consumers’ participation in the sharing economy.
Although the positive impact of sustainability on consumers’ attitudes, satisfaction, and
behavioral intentions has been established, how companies improve consumers’ perceived
sustainability of sharing economy services remains unclear. In addition, prior studies have
focused on the environmental aspect and neglected the social and economy aspects.

2.2. Sustainability
Sustainability fulfills the demands of the present generation without harming the
ability of future generations to fulfill their own demands, and has become essential for
companies [15]. The triple bottom line of sustainability consists of economic performance,
society, and the natural environment [16]. To achieve sustainability, the strategic integration
of the three pillars (i.e., economy, society, and environment) determines the financial, social
and environmental performance measures of business sustainability [3,15].
Sustainability key performance indicators (KPIs) are quantifiable measurements that
companies use to gauge their progress toward specific sustainability goals. These KPIs
provide a tangible way to assess and track the effectiveness of sustainability strategies
across various sectors, including both service and manufacturing industries. Sustainability
KPIs must be aligned with a firm’s sustainability goals and strategic objectives, and must
be regularly monitored and reviewed to ensure ongoing relevance and performance im-
provement. Neri et al. [17] outlined six perspectives (financial, internal process, learning
and growth, consumer, environment, and social) along with 33 KPIs to assess sustainability
in industrial supply chains. Hristov and Chirico [2] identified appropriate KPIs that affect
a company’s performance and proposed a method to integrate sustainability into company
Sustainability 2024, 16, 7753 3 of 16

strategies. This study indicates that satisfaction is a useful key performance indicator from
a social perspective. Employee satisfaction can also be a significant driver of sustainability
because a higher level of job satisfaction results in higher service quality, which increases
consumer loyalty and provides economic benefits.
Sustainability KPIs are used to evaluate the effectiveness of sustainability within a
company. By contrast, perceived sustainability refers to consumers’ subjective perceptions
of a company’s sustainability. Sustainability KPIs may have exhibit limitations when
attempting to understand the qualitative aspects of sustainability performance [18], which
can be captured through perceived sustainability. Perceived sustainability is a concept based
on the degree to which consumers feel that a company’s products or services positively
impact environmental, social, and economic sustainability [10]. This concept stems from
the subjective evaluation of a company’s efforts toward sustainability. Three factors are
related to perceived sustainability: strength, magnitude, and mobilizability [19]. Strength
refers to the extent to which consumers believe in a company’s proficiency and expertise in
sustainability. Proficiency includes specialized skills, social relationships, and knowledge
in the field of sustainability [20]. Magnitude represents the degree to which consumers
believe in a company’s commitment to sustainability. Companies should extend their
focus beyond profits by considering social responsibility and environmental protection.
Mobilizability is the capacity of a company to inspire consumers to engage in actions that
promote sustainable development [21]. Sharing economy companies should recognize the
importance of sustainability in ensuring that consumers prefer their brands and integrate
the elements of perceived sustainability into their green strategies [22,23].

2.3. Green Transparency

Many companies claim that they commit to being environmentally friendly through
advertising and corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports, letting consumers believe
that the company is eco-friendly and socially responsible, which leads to better continuance
intention and brand value [24]. However, some companies act as sustainability decoys,
enabling greenwashing with a lack of green transparency but without penalty. According
to the Eco-Age [25], famous fashion brands are exacerbating plastic pollution and climate
crises by persistently relying on synthetic fibers derived from fossil fuels. These brands
make sustainability claims, with their products featuring some form of green labeling. How-
ever, the worst offenders were found to make false claims in 96% of cases. TerraChoice [26]
has reported that in Canada and the United States, over 95% of products claiming to be
“greener” commit one or more of the seven “Sins of Greenwashing.” The greenwashing of
brands includes the use of ambiguous keywords, such as eco-friendly, organic, no chemicals
and sustainability, and false messages to mislead consumers.
Perceived green transparency refers to the degree to which consumers believe that
a company is honest and shares genuine information on environmental improvements
and sustainability. This can reduce greenwashing [24] and consumers’ doubtful attitudes
toward a company’s green initiatives [27]. Transparent information on sustainability
assists consumers in understanding the motives behind a company’s green initiatives [28].
Companies can increase transparency by sharing sustainability information [29]. Therefore,
a transparent and authentic green policy is crucial for consumers to believe that a company
truly engages in sustainability.

3. Research Model and Hypothesis Development

The research model is illustrated in Figure 1. Perceived sustainability is conceptu-
alized as a second-order reflective construct with the aspects of economic, social, and
environmental performance [30]. The antecedents of perceived sustainability are expertise
in sustainability (i.e., strength), extent of sustainable development (i.e., magnitude), and
ability to mobilize consumers (i.e., mobilizability). Consumers’ perceived sustainability
of a sharing economy service affects their intention to continue using it. This impact is
Sustainability 2024, 16, 7753 4 of 16

moderated by perceived green transparency. In this context, we formulate the hypotheses

in subsequent subsections.

Figure 1. Research model of perceived sustainability.

3.1. Antecedents of Perceived Sustainability

Expertise in sustainability refers to the degree to which a consumer believes that a
company has the relevant competencies, social relations, and knowledge of sustainability.
It determines a company’s success in sustainable development [19]. Prior studies have
shown that a company’s green and technical expertise plays an important role in green
innovation [31,32]. Therefore, we posit that consumers’ perceived sustainability of a
sharing economy service increases when they believe that the company possesses expertise
in sustainability.

H1. Expertise in sustainability is positively associated with perceived sustainability.

The extent of sustainable development refers to companies’ scope of sustainability

goals and their activities. According to the triple bottom line model proposed by Elking-
ton [16], companies should not only focus on their own business profits but also try to
enhance social wealth and environmental protection, which emphasizes the importance of
considering all three aspects when formulating their sustainability strategies. Expansion
of scope is necessary to strengthen perceived sustainability [19]. The larger the extent of
sustainable development, the more extensive and far-reaching the action a company takes
toward sustainable development, thereby enhancing consumers’ perception of sustainabil-
ity. Hence, we propose the following hypothesis.

H2. The extent of sustainable development is positively associated with perceived sustainability.

The ability to mobilize consumers refers to the ability to drive consumers to take action
to make changes for sustainability. Engaging the public in sustainability initiatives enables
the community to contribute to solutions and participate in shaping policies and actions
that promote a sustainable future [33]. Mobilizability can fortify consumers’ beliefs about a
company’s sustainable development [19]. If a company can promote public engagement
in sustainability, such as by reducing resource waste, minimizing pollution, and choosing
sustainable products, consumers will become aware of the importance of sustainability and
believe that the company’s products or services are favorable for sustainability. Hence, we
propose the following hypothesis.

H3. The ability to mobilize consumers is positively associated with perceived sustainability.

In summary, we consider that a company’s expertise in sustainability, extent of sus-

tainable development, and ability to mobilize consumers are antecedents of the consumer-

1
Sustainability 2024, 16, 7753 5 of 16

perceived sustainability of the service provided by that company. A company’s sustain-

ability strategies influence consumer beliefs and perceptions regarding its performance,
products, or services in terms of sustainability. Companies must focus on these key an-
tecedents to enhance consumers’ perceived sustainability.

3.2. Perceived Sustainability and Continuance Use Intention

The Theory of Planned Behavior [34] indicates that an individual’s intention to perform
a behavior is shaped by their attitudes toward the behavior, subjective norms, and perceived
behavioral control. Therefore, if consumers perceive a service as sustainable and aligned
with their personal values and societal norms, this could positively influence their attitude
toward the behavior, thereby increasing their behavioral intention. Similarly, the Value-
Belief-Norm theory [35] also indicates that individuals’ behaviors are driven by their
personal norms, which are influenced by their social values. If consumers believe in the
sustainability of a sharing economy service, this could shape their personal norms in favor
of continuing to use the service. Previous studies have shown that when consumers believe
that the sharing economy is favorable for sustainable development, they are willing to
participate in the sharing economy [13,14]. Consumers are more likely to continue using a
sharing economy service if they perceive it as sustainable. Thus, we propose the following
hypothesis.

H4. Perceived Sustainability is positively associated with continuance intention.

3.3. Perceived Green Transparency as a Moderator

High levels of green transparency can enhance consumers’ comprehension of a com-
pany’s commitment to sustainability and socially responsible activities [27]. Green trans-
parency in the business context refers to the extent to which a company discloses pertinent
and significant information about its green operations and management [36]. Nonetheless,
not all companies are forthright about their green policies, with some making decep-
tive assertions about the environmental merits of their products [37,38]. An increase in
transparency regarding a company’s environmental performance reduces the company’s
incentive to greenwash [39]. Companies can offer consumers information about their sus-
tainability performance to improve their perceived green transparency. When consumers
perceive a high level of green transparency in a company, they feel more confident that
the company is genuinely sustainable and less likely to greenwash. This could reinforce
the credibility of perceived sustainability and thus strengthen the positive influence of
perceived sustainability on consumers’ intention to continue using a product. Thus, the
following hypothesis is developed.

H5. Perceived green transparency positively moderates the relationship between perceived sustain-
ability and continuance intention.

4. Research Methodology
All the measurement items used in this study were adapted from previous studies.
The items measuring expertise in sustainability, the extent of sustainable development, and
the ability to mobilize consumers were adapted from Lee [19]. The aspects of perceived
sustainability, economic performance, social performance, and environmental performance
were adapted from Jelinkova et al. [40]. The items measuring perceived green transparency
were adapted from Lin et al. [41]. The items measuring continuance intention were adapted
from Bhattacherjee [42]. Each item was assessed on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly
disagree, 4 = neutral, and 7 = strongly agree). The questionnaire was designed for two types
of sharing economy services, Uber and Uber Eats, to understand whether different types
of sharing economy services result in different consumer perceptions. The measurement
items are listed in Appendix A.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 7753 6 of 16

We conducted an Internet survey to collect the data. The invitation was posted on
PTT ([Link] and Dcard ([Link] These are the two most
popular online forums in Taiwan. The participants must have had experience using Uber
or Uber Eats services in the last six months. To ensure the respondents’ eligibility, the
questionnaire asked them to indicate the number of times they had used the service in the
past month and half a year. Additionally, we included a trap item in the questionnaire
to check whether the participants had read and answered the questionnaire carefully. To
incentivize participation in the survey, we provided gift cards from a convenience store as
tokens of appreciation for completing the questionnaire.

5. Data Analysis and Results

A total of 220 valid responses were collected from Uber users and 209 valid responses
were collected from Uber Eats users. Table 1 presents demographic data. Most respondents
were women and aged 20–39 years.

Table 1. Demographic data.

Frequency Frequency
Attribute Category % %
(Uber) (Uber Eats)
Male 54 24.5% 56 26.8%
Gender
Female 166 75.5% 153 73.2%
19 or younger 6 2.7% 5 2.4%
20 to 29 123 55.9% 118 56.5%
30 to 39 77 35% 75 35.9%
Years of age
40 to 49 8 3.6% 6 2.9%
50 to 59 3 1.4% 3 1.4%
60 or order 3 1.4% 2 1%
High school 9 4.1% 9 4.3%
Level of
Bachelor’s degree 180 81.8% 169 80.9%
education
Master’s degree or above 31 14.1% 31 14.8%
Agriculture, forestry, fishing,
2 0.9% 4 1.9%
and livestock industry
Business and financial industry 42 19.1% 40 19.1%
Catering, leisure, and other
32 14.5% 31 14.8%
service industries
Technology and information
41 18.6% 36 17.2%
industry
Occupation
Teaching 8 3.6% 4 1.9%
Student 50 22.7% 54 25.8%
Public servant 13 5.9% 8 3.8%
Self-employed/ homemaker 17 7.7% 14 6.7%
Unemployed 2 0.9% 4 1.9%
Other industries 13 5.9% 14 6.7%

5.1. Measurement Model

In the responses for both Uber and Uber Eats, one item on the extent of sustainable
development, one item on economic performance, and two items on social performance
were deleted because the factor loading values of these items were lower than 0.7.
Table 2 presents the measurement model of Uber. The Cronbach’s alpha (CA) and
composite reliability (CR) values are greater than 0.7, the average variance extracted (AVE)
Sustainability 2024, 16, 7753 7 of 16

is greater than 0.5, and the factor loadings are greater than 0.7, indicating that the scales
have good reliability and convergent validity. The diagonal line of the correlation matrix
(see Table 3) represents the square roots of the AVE, which surpasses the inter-construct
correlations. These results indicate good discriminant validity. As shown in Table 4, all
variance inflation factors (VIFs) are below 10, indicating that multicollinearity is not a
significant concern in this study [43]. Table 5 shows that all the condition index values are
smaller than 30 and that no two or more than two variance proportions are greater than 0.9
in one row, indicating that the multicollinearity is not serious [44,45].

Table 2. Measurement model of Uber.

Construct and Item Factor Loading

Expertise in Sustainability (EIS)
EIS1 0.914
CA = 0.960; EIS2 0.960
CR = 0.971;
AVE = 0.892 EIS3 0.956
EIS4 0.949
Extent of sustainable development (ESD)
CA = 0.935; ESD2 0.967
CR = 0.968;
ESD3 0.971
AVE = 0.939
Ability to mobilize consumers (AMC)
AMC1 0.951
CA = 0.954;
CR = 0.970; AMC2 0.958
AVE = 0.915 AMC3 0.962
Perceived sustainability—
Economic performance (PSE)
PSE1 0.754
CA = 0.791;
CR = 0.865; PSE2 0.910
AVE = 0.682 PSE4 0.805
Perceived sustainability—
Social performance (PSS)
CA = 0.709; PSS1 0.865
CR = 0.872;
PSS2 0.895
AVE = 0.774
Perceived sustainability—
Environmental performance (PSN)
CA = 0.900; PSN1 0.955
CR = 0.952;
PSN2 0.952
AVE = 0.909
Perceived green transparency (PGT)
PGT1 0.962
CA = 0.972; PGT2 0.940
CR = 0.977;
AVE = 0.916 PGT3 0.962
PGT4 0.963
Continuance intention (COI)
COI1 0.949
CA = 0.938;
CR = 0.960; COI2 0.933
AVE = 0.890 COI3 0.949
Sustainability 2024, 16, 7753 8 of 16

Table 3. Correlation matrix of Uber.

AMC COI EIS ESD PGT PSE PSN PSS

AMC 0.957
COI −0.077 0.943
EIS 0.845 −0.109 0.945
ESD 0.844 −0.115 0.870 0.969
PGT 0.870 −0.073 0.835 0.822 0.957
PSE 0.063 0.664 0.007 0.024 0.029 0.826
PSN 0.832 −0.053 0.813 0.797 0.828 0.109 0.954
PSS 0.514 0.361 0.514 0.503 0.508 0.402 0.562 0.880

Table 4. Variance inflation factors of Uber.

Construct VIF
Expertise in Sustainability 5.644
Extent of Sustainable Development 5.165
Ability to Mobilize Consumers 5.919
Perceived Sustainability—Economic Performance 1.307
Perceived Sustainability—Social Performance 1.907
Perceived Sustainability—Environmental Performance 4.314
Perceived Green Transparency 5.812
Dependent variable: Continuance Intention.

Table 5. Collinearity diagnostics of Uber.

Condition Variance Proportions

Dimension Eigenvalue
Index (Constant) EIS ESD AMC PSE PSS PSN PGT
1 7.634 1.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 0.247 5.561 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01
3 0.033 15.193 0.00 0.14 0.40 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.19
4 0.022 18.482 0.00 0.18 0.16 0.54 0.05 0.00 0.22 0.08
5 0.021 19.272 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.17 0.01 0.00 0.38 0.69
6 0.019 19.931 0.01 0.60 0.37 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00
7 0.013 24.399 0.96 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.42 0.09 0.00 0.00
8 0.012 25.679 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.50 0.89 0.04 0.02
Dependent variable: Continuance Intention.

Table 6 provides the measurement model of Uber Eats. The values of CA and CR
are greater than 0.7, the AVE values are greater than 0.5, and the factor loadings are
greater than 0.7, indicating that the scales have good reliability and convergent validity.
Table 7 demonstrates that the square root of the AVE for each construct is greater than its
correlations with other constructs, indicating good discriminant validity. Table 8 indicates
that all VIF values are lower than 10, suggesting that multicollinearity is not an issue in the
present study. Table 9 shows that all the condition index values are smaller than 30 and that
no two or more than two variance proportions are greater than 0.9 in one row, indicating
that the multicollinearity is not severe [44,45].
Sustainability 2024, 16, 7753 9 of 16

Table 6. Measurement model of Uber Eats.

Construct and Item Factor Loading

Expertise in Sustainability (EIS)
EIS1 0.925
CA = 0.965; EIS2 0.955
CR = 0.974;
AVE = 0.905 EIS3 0.960
EIS4 0.963
Extent of sustainable development (ESD)
CA= 0.899; ESD2 0.949
CR = 0.952;
ESD3 0.957
AVE = 0.908
Ability to mobilize consumers (AMC)
AMC1 0.971
CA = 0.965;
CR = 0.977; AMC2 0.969
AVE = 0.935 AMC3 0.961
Perceived sustainability—
Economic performance (PSE)
PSE1 0.746
CA = 0.738;
CR = 0.834; PSE2 0.897
AVE = 0.628 PSE4 0.722
Perceived sustainability—
Social performance (PSS)
CA = 0.797; PSS1 0.892
CR = 0.907;
PSS2 0.930
AVE = 0.830
Perceived sustainability—
Environmental performance (PSN)
CA = 0.896; PSN1 0.954
CR = 0.950;
PSN2 0.949
AVE = 0.906
Perceived green transparency (PGT)
PGT1 0.953
CA = 0.976; PGT2 0.963
CR = 0.982;
AVE = 0.931 PGT3 0.972
PGT4 0.973
Continuance intention (COI)
COI1 0.956
CA = 0.951;
CR = 0.968; COI2 0.950
AVE = 0.910 COI3 0.956
Sustainability 2024, 16, 7753 10 of 16

Table 7. Correlation matrix of Uber Eats.

AMC COI EIS ESD PGT PSE PSN PSS

AMC 0.967
COI −0.119 0.954
EIS 0.833 −0.027 0.951
ESD 0.791 −0.049 0.872 0.953
PGT 0.874 −0.079 0.859 0.820 0.965
PSE 0.006 0.586 −0.005 0.006 −0.003 0.792
PSN 0.755 0.018 0.758 0.756 0.797 0.167 0.952
PSS 0.422 0.289 0.393 0.481 0.393 0.410 0.397 0.911

Table 8. Variance inflation factors of Uber Eats.

Construct VIF
Expertise in Sustainability 6.042
Extent of Sustainable Development 5.116
Ability to Mobilize Consumers 4.968
Perceived Sustainability—Economic
1.473
Performance
Perceived Sustainability—Social Performance 1.800
Perceived Sustainability—Environmental
3.302
Performance
Perceived Green Transparency 6.411
Dependent variable: Continuance Intention.

Table 9. Collinearity diagnostics of Uber Eats.

Condition Variance Proportions

Dimension Eigenvalue
Index (Constant) EIS ESD AMC PSE PSS PSN PGT
1 7.564 1.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 0.280 5.196 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01
3 0.045 13.032 0.00 0.08 0.31 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.28 0.05
4 0.040 13.831 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.31 0.00 0.01 0.54 0.03
5 0.024 17.659 0.08 0.42 0.22 0.29 0.00 0.09 0.02 0.13
6 0.021 19.053 0.00 0.29 0.05 0.27 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.75
7 0.015 22.517 0.76 0.18 0.19 0.03 0.09 0.33 0.00 0.01
8 0.012 24.867 0.13 0.02 0.14 0.02 0.87 0.52 0.11 0.03
Dependent variable: Continuance Intention.

5.2. Structural Model

We used partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) to analyze the
data. PLS-SEM maximizes the explained variance of the endogenous latent variables by
estimating partial model relationships in an iterative sequence of ordinary least square
(OLS) regressions [46]. Bootstrapping is used to obtain the inference statistics for all
model parameters, in which a large number of resamples with replacement are drawn
from the original sample and then the model parameters are estimated for each bootstrap
resample [47]. The advantages of PLS-SEM are that it relaxes the assumption of multivariate
normality and has minimum demands regarding the sample size.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 7753 11 of 16

We employed SmartPLS 4.0, with a bootstrapping algorithm (5000 resamples), to

examine the proposed hypotheses. The significance level is set at 0.05. The structural model
of Uber is illustrated in Figure 2. Expertise in sustainability has a marginally significant
impact on perceived sustainability (β = 0.223, p < 0.1, SE = 0.133), and the ability to mobi-
lize consumers has a significant impact on perceived sustainability (β = 0.413, p < 0.001,
SE = 0.098). Conversely, the impact of the extent of sustainable development is not sig-
nificant (β = 0.15, p = 0.215, SE = 0.121). Furthermore, perceived sustainability has a
significant impact on continuance intention (β = 0.687, p < 0.001, SE = 0.166). This impact is
significantly moderated by perceived green transparency (β = 0.223, p < 0.05, SE = 0.111).

Figure 2. PLS analysis for Uber.

In summary, the results show that consumers’ perceived sustainability of Uber is

mainly determined by its ability to mobilize consumers, followed by its expertise in sus-
tainability. The antecedents explain 56 percent of the variance in perceived sustainability.
The perceived sustainability has a positive impact on continuance intention and explains
31 percent of its variance. This positive impact can be enhanced when the perceived green
transparency increases.
As depicted in Figure 3, the structural model of Uber Eats illustrates that the impact
of expertise in sustainability is not significant (β = 0.043, p = 0.726, SE = 0.133), while
the extent of sustainable development (β = 0.438, p < 0.001, SE = 0.114) and ability to
mobilize consumers (β = 0.288, p < 0.01, SE = 0.110) have a significant impact on perceived
sustainability. Additionally, the impact of perceived sustainability on continuance intention
is significant (β = 0.603, p < 0.001, SE = 0.131). This impact is significantly moderated by
perceived green transparency (β = 0.259, p < 0.05, SE = 0.132).

Figure 3. PLS analysis for Uber Eats.

Sustainability 2024, 16, 7753 12 of 16

In summary, the results show that the perceived sustainability of Uber Eats is deter-
mined by the extent of sustainable development and the ability to mobilize consumers.
The antecedents explain 52 percent of the variance in perceived sustainability. The
perceived sustainability has a positive impact on continuance intention and explains
26 percent of its variance. This positive impact can be enhanced when the perceived green
transparency increases.
A PLS marker variable approach has been used to diagnose the common method
variance (CMV) [48]. Fashion consciousness and fantasizing items were used as indicators
to create a marker variable [49]. This marker variable was incorporated into the structural
models and linked to all endogenous variables. The PLS results showed that the original
significant paths remained significant after incorporating the marker variable, indicating
that there is no common method bias.

6. Conclusions
6.1. Major Findings and Discussion
The sustainable value of sharing economy services has received increasing attention in
recent years. Corporate strategies are advancing toward environmental and social sustain-
ability. However, limited research has explored the antecedents of perceived sustainability
and whether perceived green transparency enhances the impact of perceived sustainability
on continuance intention. The results demonstrate that the proposed model is suitable
for explaining the antecedents and consequences of perceived sustainability. Consumers’
perceived sustainability of a sharing economy service increases their intention to continue
using it. Their perceived green transparency of the company can make them believe that
the perceived sustainability is genuine, thus increasing its impact on continuance intention.
A company’s expertise in sustainability, extent of sustainable development, and ability to
mobilize consumers increase perceived sustainability. However, the impact of antecedents
may vary for different types of services.
For Uber users, expertise in sustainability and the ability to mobilize consumers
determine their perceived sustainability. However, the extent of sustainable development
does not influence perceived sustainability. By contrast, for Uber Eats users, its extent of
sustainable development and ability to mobilize consumers have a significant and positive
impact on perceived sustainability, but expertise in sustainability does not. One possible
reason is that people have both environmental and societal concerns regarding online food
delivery services. Food packaging, delivery, and waste generation produce significant
CO2 emissions [50]. Moreover, online food delivery services involve labor rights, traffic
risks, and public health issues [51–53]. As such, the extent of sustainable development is
more important than expertise in sustainability, leading to consumers’ perceptions of the
sustainability of Uber Eats.

6.2. Theoretical Implications

The main contributions of this study include identifying the antecedents of perceived
sustainability and examining the moderating effects of perceived green transparency. Prior
studies have shown that if people believe that the sharing economy is environmentally
friendly, they are willing to participate in the sharing economy [10,12,13]. These studies
focused on sustainability in terms of environmental performance and did not consider how
a sharing economy company increases consumers’ perceived sustainability of its services.
Lee [19] proposed that strength, magnitude, and mobilizability are related to perceived
sustainability, but she did not examine how strength, magnitude, and mobilizability de-
termine perceived sustainability. Our study focused on sustainability from an economic,
environmental, and social performance perspective according to the triple bottom line [13]
and showed that a company can enhance its expertise in sustainability, its extent of sustain-
able development, and its ability to mobilize consumers to increase consumers’ perception
of sustainability.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 7753 13 of 16

Prior studies on green transparency have shown that it can reduce a company’s
intention to greenwash and reduce consumers’ doubtful attitudes toward a company’s
green initiatives [24,27,39]. This study advances our understanding of green transparency
by examining its moderating effect on the relationship between perceived sustainability
and continuance intentions. Consumers’ perceived green transparency of a company makes
them believe that the company truly engages with sustainability and enhances the positive
impact of perceived sustainability on their intention to continue using the service.

6.3. Practical Implications

A sharing economy company should devise sustainability strategies to communicate
its strength, magnitude, and mobilizability for sustainable development to consumers. To
increase its expertise in sustainability, a company should improve its competence through
education, training, and learning, and utilize social media, websites, or advertisements to
show its sustainability-related significance and expertise in a particular sustainability issue.
To increase the extent of sustainable development, a company should show its concerns
about environmental protection and societal issues via advertisements, CSR reports, and
sustainability-related activities. To increase their ability to mobilize consumers, companies
should inspire and encourage them to act in the interests of sustainability.
It is also suggested that sharing economy companies make their green policies and
operations transparent by disclosing how their services affect sustainability and what
policies and practices are adopted for sustainable development. Consumers with high envi-
ronmental awareness may perceive a company as less transparent because they expect to
find complete and detailed information about the company’s sustainable development [27].
A company should understand the detailed information that consumers expect and design
communication strategies that deliver sufficient information on sustainability.

6.4. Limitations and Future Research

Our study collected data from the users of Uber and Uber Eats. Therefore, the results
may not be generalizable to other types of services. In addition, the research results show
that expertise in sustainability is more important for ride-hailing services such as Uber,
while the extent of sustainable development is more important for online food delivery
services such as Uber Eats. The antecedents of the perceived sustainability of different types
of services warrant future research. Furthermore, most respondents in the surveys were
females and young people. Companies’ expertise in sustainability and ability to mobilize
consumers could be more influential to men than to women because men sometimes focus
more on utility (expertise and action) than women [19]. Young consumers are more aware
and more educated about environmental issues than older consumers [54]. How consumer
characteristics such as age and gender moderate the influences of sustainability strategies,
perceived sustainability and green transparency needs further investigation.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.-L.H. and Y.-R.L.; methodology, S.-L.H. and Y.-R.L.;
formal analysis, S.-L.H. and Y.-R.L.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.-R.L.; writing—review and
editing, S.-L.H.; supervision, S.-L.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 7753 14 of 16

Appendix A
Measurement items (note: [the company] is either Uber or Uber Eats in the question-
naire):
Expertise in sustainability (EIS)
EIS1: [The company] uses media exposure and activity hosting to show its sustainability-
related significance.
EIS2: [The company] improves its competence in particular sustainability issues through
education, training, and learning.
EIS3: [The company] refers to a particular sustainability issue with a higher frequency and
gives it more coverage, which guides me on how to think and act on sustainability issues.
EIS4: [The company] devotes itself to improve and show its expertise in dealing with
particular sustainability issues.

Extent of sustainable development (ESD)

ESD2: [The company] employs communications such as ads, CSR reports, and activities to
show its concern for society’s interests.
ESD3: [The company] employs communications such as ads, CSR reports, and activities to
show its concern for nature protection.

Ability to mobilize consumers (AMC)

AMC1: [The company] encourages me to take action to protect our living environment.
AMC2: [The company] encourages me to reduce pollution.
AMC3: [The company] mobilizes consumers to take action for sustainability.

Perceived sustainability—Economic performance (PSE)

PSE1: [The company]’s service is beneficial to the economy of the country.
PSE2: [The company]’s service is a way to ensure more efficient utilization of resources.
PSE4: [The company]’s service may be an interesting source of income for providers
of assets.

Perceived sustainability—Social performance (PSS)

PSS1: [The company]’s service contributes toward a greater level of employment and
creates new jobs.
PSS2: Participation in [the company]’s service simplifies the work–life balance.

Perceived sustainability—Environmental performance (PSN)

PSN1: Sharing via [the company]’s platform is environmentally friendly because it
saves resources.
PSN2: Sharing via [the company]’s platforms limits waste production.

Perceived green transparency (PGT)

PGT1: [The company] clearly explains how it controls the emissions caused by its service
processes that could harm the environment.
PGT2: Overall, [the company] provides the information needed to understand the environ-
mental impact of its service processes.
PGT3: [The company] provides relevant information regarding sustainability issues associ-
ated with its service processes.
PGT4: [The company]’s policies and practices of sustainable development are provided to
consumers in a clear and complete manner.

Continuance intention (COI)

COI1: I want to continue using [the company]’s services rather than discontinue them.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 7753 15 of 16

COI2: My intentions are to continue using [the company]’s services, rather than any
alternative means.
COI3: If I could, I would like to continue using [the company]’s services.

References
1. Chuah, S.H.-W.; Tseng, M.-L.; Wu, K.-J.; Cheng, C.-F. Factors influencing the adoption of sharing economy in B2B context in
China: Findings from PLS-SEM and fsqca. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 175, 105892. [CrossRef]
2. Hristov, I.; Chirico, A. The role of sustainability key performance indicators (kpis) in implementing sustainable strategies.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5742. [CrossRef]
3. Hu, J.; Liu, Y.-L.; Yuen, T.W.W.; Lim, M.K.; Hu, J. Do green practices really attract customers? The sharing economy from the
sustainable supply chain management perspective. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 149, 177–187. [CrossRef]
4. Sundararajan, A. The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA,
USA, 2017.
5. Mattia, G.; Mugion, R.G.; Principato, L. Shared mobility as a driver for sustainable consumptions: The intention to re-use
free-floating car sharing. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 237, 117404. [CrossRef]
6. Llanos, G.; Guiñez-Cabrera, N.; Mansilla-Obando, K.; Gómez-Sotta, E.; Buchuk, P.; Altamirano, M.; Alviz, M. Collaborative con-
sumption in an emerging market: What motivates consumers to adopt it under economic and political uncertainty? Sustainability
2023, 15, 15482. [CrossRef]
7. GlobalNewsWire. Sharing Economy Market Size in 2022–2027. Available online: [Link]
news-release/2022/10/14/2534618/0/en/Sharing-Economy-Market-Size-in-2022-2027-New-Report-reaching-USD-600000-0
-[Link] (accessed
on 25 March 2023).
8. Frenken, K.; Schor, J. Putting the sharing economy into perspective. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2017, 23, 3–10. [CrossRef]
9. Wang, Y.; Xiang, D.; Yang, Z.; Ma, S.S. Unraveling customer sustainable consumption behaviors in sharing economy: A
socio-economic approach based on social exchange theory. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 208, 869–879. [CrossRef]
10. Hamari, J.; Sjöklint, M.; Ukkonen, A. The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. J. Assoc. Inf.
Sci. Technol. 2016, 67, 2047–2059. [CrossRef]
11. Martin, C.J. The sharing economy: A pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form of neoliberal capitalism? Ecol. Econ. 2016,
121, 149–159. [CrossRef]
12. Huang, S.-L.; Kuo, S.-Y. Understanding why people share in the sharing economy. Online Inf. Rev. 2020, 44, 805–825. [CrossRef]
13. Arteaga-Sánchez, R.; Belda-Ruiz, M.; Ros-Galvez, A.; Rosa-Garcia, A. Why continue sharing: Determinants of behavior in
ridesharing services. Int. J. Mark. Res. 2000, 62, 725–742. [CrossRef]
14. Gazzola, P.; Vătămănescu, E.M.; Andrei, A.G.; Marrapodi, C. Users’ motivations to participate in the sharing economy: Moving
from profits toward sustainable development. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 26, 741–751. [CrossRef]
15. Carter, C.R.; Rogers, D.S. A framework of sustainable supply chain management: Moving toward new theory. Int. J. Phys. Distrib.
Logist. Manag. 2008, 38, 360–387. [CrossRef]
16. Elkington, J. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business; Capstone: Oxford, UK, 1999.
17. Neri, A.; Cagno, E.; Lepri, M.; Trianni, A. A triple bottom line balanced set of key performance indicators to measure the
sustainability performance of industrial supply chains. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 26, 648–691. [CrossRef]
18. Herzig, C.; Schaltegger, S. Corporate sustainability reporting. In Sustainability Communication: Interdisciplinary Perspectives and
Theoretical Foundation; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 151–169.
19. Lee, Y.C. Communicating sustainable development: Effects of stakeholder-centric perceived sustainability. Corp. Soc. Responsib.
Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 1540–1551. [CrossRef]
20. Moran, L.; Rau, H. Mapping divergent concepts of sustainability: Lay knowledge, local practices and environmental governance.
Local Environ. 2016, 21, 344–360. [CrossRef]
21. Ghoshal, M. Green marketing—A changing concept in changing time. BVIMR Manag. Edge 2011, 4, 82–92.
22. Matharu, M.; Jain, R.; Kamboj, S. Understanding the impact of lifestyle on sustainable consumption behavior: A sharing economy
perspective. Manag. Environ. Qual. 2021, 32, 20–40. [CrossRef]
23. Ek Styvén, M.; Mariani, M.M. Understanding the intention to buy secondhand clothing on sharing economy platforms: The
influence of sustainability, distance from the consumption system, and economic motivations. Psychol. Mark. 2020, 37, 724–739.
[CrossRef]
24. Nyilasy, G.; Gangadharbatla, H.; Paladino, A. Perceived greenwashing: The interactive effects of green advertising and corporate
environmental performance on consumer reactions. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 125, 693–707. [CrossRef]
25. Eco-Age Fashion Industry Addicted to Greenwashing and Fossil-Fuel Based Synthetics: New Report from Changing Markets.
Available online: [Link] (accessed on 19 February
2023).
26. TerraChoice. The Sins of Greenwashing: Home and Family Edition. Available online: [Link]
uploads/2018/05/Terrachoice_The_Sins_of_Greenwashing_-_Home_and_Family_Edition_2010.pdf (accessed on 6 August 2024).
27. Vaccaro, A.; Patiño Echeverri, D. Corporate transparency and green management. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 95, 487–506. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 7753 16 of 16

28. Reynolds, M.; Yuthas, K. Moral discourse and corporate social responsibility reporting. J. Bus. Ethics 2008, 78, 47–64. [CrossRef]
29. Meise, J.N.; Rudolph, T.; Kenning, P.; Phillips, D.M. Feed them facts: Value perceptions and consumer use of sustainability-related
product information. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2014, 21, 510–519. [CrossRef]
30. Iniesta-Bonillo, M.A.; Sánchez-Fernández, R.; Jiménez-Castillo, D. Sustainability, value, and satisfaction: Model testing and
cross-validation in tourist destinations. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 5002–5007. [CrossRef]
31. de Medeiros, J.F.; Vidor, G.; Ribeiro, J.L.s.D. Driving factors for the success of the green innovation market: A relationship system
proposal. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 147, 327–341. [CrossRef]
32. Su, R.; Shui, X.; Zhang, M.; Li, S. Too hot to be innovative: Examining the relationship between high temperatures and corporate
green innovation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2024, 274, 109316. [CrossRef]
33. Segura-Salazar, J.; Tavares, L.M. Sustainability in the minerals industry: Seeking a consensus on its meaning. Sustainability 2018,
10, 1429. [CrossRef]
34. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [CrossRef]
35. Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Abel, T.; Guagnano, G.A.; Kalof, L. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of
environmentalism. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 1999, 6, 81–97.
36. Bushman, R.M.; Piotroski, J.D.; Smith, A.J. What determines corporate transparency? J. Account. Res. 2004, 42, 207–252. [CrossRef]
37. Chen, Y.S.; Chang, C.H. Enhance green purchase intentions: The roles of green perceived value, green perceived risk, and green
trust. Manag. Decis. 2012, 50, 502–520. [CrossRef]
38. Szabo, S.; Webster, J. Perceived greenwashing: The effects of green marketing on environmental and product perceptions. J. Bus.
Ethics 2021, 171, 719–739. [CrossRef]
39. Delmas, M.A.; Burbano, V.C. The drivers of greenwashing. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2011, 54, 64–87. [CrossRef]
40. Jelinkova, M.; Tetrevova, L.; Vavra, J.; Munzarova, S. The sharing economy in the context of sustainable development and social
responsibility: The example of the czech republic. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9886. [CrossRef]
41. Lin, J.; Lobo, A.; Leckie, C. The role of benefits and transparency in shaping consumers’ green perceived value, self-brand
connection and brand loyalty. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 35, 133–141. [CrossRef]
42. Bhattacherjee, A. An empirical analysis of the antecedents of electronic commerce service continuance. Decis. Support Syst. 2001,
32, 201–214. [CrossRef]
43. Chatterjee, S.; Price, B. Regression Analysis by Example; Wiley-Interscience: New York, NY, USA, 1991.
44. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis: Advanced Diagnostics for Multiple Regression; Pearson
Education: London, UK, 2013.
45. Thompson, C.G.; Kim, R.S.; Aloe, A.M.; Becker, B.J. Extracting the variance inflation factor and other multicollinearity diagnostics
from typical regression results. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2017, 39, 81–90. [CrossRef]
46. Hair, J.F.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Mena, J.A. An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in
marketing research. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2012, 40, 414–433. [CrossRef]
47. Henseler, J.; Hubona, G.; Ray, P.A. Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Ind. Manag. Data
Syst. 2016, 116, 2–20. [CrossRef]
48. Rönkkö, M.; Ylitalo, J. PLS marker variable approach to diagnosing and controlling for method variance. In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai, China, 4–7 December 2011.
49. Malhotra, N.K.; Kim, S.S.; Patil, A. Common method variance in is research: A comparison of alternative approaches and a
reanalysis of past research. Manag. Sci. 2006, 52, 1865–1883. [CrossRef]
50. Hu, X.; Liu, C.; Zhuo, Q.; Moon, D. Assessing CO2 emissions of online food delivery in Japan. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8084.
[CrossRef]
51. Sinha, D.; Pandit, D. Assessing the economic sustainability of gig work: A case of hyper-local food delivery workers in Kolkata,
India. Res. Transp. Econ. 2023, 100, 101335. [CrossRef]
52. Duthie, C.; Pocock, T.; Curl, A.; Clark, E.; Norriss, D.; Bidwell, S.; McKerchar, C.; Crossin, R. Online on-demand delivery services
of food and alcohol: A scoping review of public health impacts. SSM-Popul. Health 2023, 21, 101349. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
53. Fan, B.; Lv, L.; Han, G. Online platform’s corporate social responsibility for mitigating traffic risk: Dynamic games and
governmental regulations in O2O food delivery industry. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2022, 169, 108188. [CrossRef]
54. Lisboa, A.; Vitorino, L.; Antunes, R. Gen zers’ intention to purchase products with sustainable packaging: An alternative
perspective to the attitude-behaviour gap. J. Mark. Manag. 2022, 38, 967–992. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.