The Students’ Perceived Use, Ease of Use and Enjoyment of Educational Games

This is an excerpt from one of my latest empirical papers.

How to Cite: Camilleri, A.C. & Camilleri, M.A. (2019). The Students’ Perceived Use, Ease of Use and Enjoyment of Educational Games at Home and at School. 13th Annual International Technology, Education and Development Conference. Valencia, Spain (10-13 March, 2019). International Academy of Technology, Education and Development (IATED). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3339163


gamesThis contribution has explored the primary school’s grade three students’ attitudes toward educational games. It relied on the technology acceptance model to investigate the students’ perceived usefulness and ease of use of the schools’ games ([10], [12], [44]). Moreover, the researchers have also included the measuring items that explored the students’ perceived enjoyment ([19]) as they investigated whether they experienced normative pressures to play the educational games ([10], [14], [20]). The findings from the Wilcoxon test reported that the students played the school games at home, more than they did at school. They indicated that the school’s games were easy to play. This study reported that the students recognized that the school’s games were useful and relevant as they were learning from them. Moreover, they indicated that the school’s educational games held their attention since they found them enjoyable and fun.

The vast majority of the children played the educational games, both at home and at school. The findings in this study are consistent with the argument that digital natives are increasingly immersing themselves in digital technologies ([45]), including educational games ([1], [3]). However, the results have shown that there was no significant relationship between the perceived ease of the gameplay and the children’s enjoyment in them. Furthermore, the stepwise regression analysis revealed that there was no significant relationship between the normative expectations and the children’s engagement with the educational games; although it was evident (from the descriptive statistics) that the parents were encouraging their children to play the games at home and at school.

This research relied on previously tried and tested measures that were drawn from the educational technology literature in order to explore the hypothesized relationships. There is common tendency in academic literature to treat the validity and reliability of quantitative measures from highly cited empirical papers as given. In this case, the survey items in this study were designed and adapted for the primary school children who were in grade 3, in a small European state. Future studies may use different sampling frames, research designs and methodologies to explore this topic. To the best of our knowledge, there is no other empirical study that has validated the technology acceptance model within a primary school setting. Further work is needed to replicate the findings of this research in a similar context.

REFERENCES (this is a full list of references that appeared in the bibliography section of the paper)

 
[1] J. Bourgonjon, M. Valcke, R. Soetaert, and T. Schellens, “Students’ perceptions about the use of educational games in the classroom,” Computers & Education, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 1145-1156, 2010.

[2] S. Bennett, K. Maton, and L. Kervin, “The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 775-786, 2008.

[3] M. Prensky, “Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1,” On the horizon, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 1-6, 2001.

[4] W. Nadeem, D. Andreini, J. Salo, and T. Laukkanen, “Engaging consumers online through websites and social media: A gender study of Italian Generation Y clothing consumers.” International Journal of Information Management, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 432- 442, 2015.

[5] H.J. So, H. Choi, W.Y. Lim, and Y. Xiong, “Little experience with ICT: Are they really the Net Generation student-teachers?”, Computers & Education, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 1234- 1245, 2012.

[6] J.M. Twenge, “The evidence for generation me and against generation we.” Emerging Adulthood 1, no. 1, pp. 11-16, 2013.

[7] D. Oblinger, and J. Oblinger, “Is it age or IT: First steps toward understanding the net generation,” Educating the Net Generation, 2(1-2), 20, 2015.

[8] N. Howe, and W. Strauss, “Millennials go to college: Strategies for a new generation on campus,” American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO), 2003.

[9] K. Gregor, T. Judd, B. Dalgarno, and J. Waycott, “Beyond natives and immigrants: exploring types of net generation students,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 26, no. 5, pp.332-343, 2010.

[10] T. Teo, “Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers,” Computers & Education 52, no. 2 (2009): 302-312, 2009.

[11] M. Fishbein, and I. Ajzen, “Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research,” 1975.

[12] F.D. Davis, “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology,” MIS Quarterly, pp. 319-340, 1989.

[13] F.D. Davis, R.P. Bagozzi, and P.R. Warshaw, “User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models,” Management Science, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 982- 1003, 1989.

[14] I. Ajzen, “The theory of planned behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 179-211, 1991.

[15] V. Venkatesh, M.G. Morris, G.B. Davis, and F.D. Davis, “User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view,” MIS Quarterly, pp. 425-478, 2003.

[16] V. Venkatesh, J.Y.L. Thong, and X. Xu, “Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology,” MIS Quarterly, pp. 157-178, 2012.

[17] S.Y. Park. “An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning,” Educational Technology & Society, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 150-162, 2009.

[18] P. Legris, J. Ingham, and P. Collerette, “Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model,” Information & Management, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 191-204, 2003.

[19] H. Nysveen, P.E. Pedersen, and H. Thorbjørnsen, “Intentions to use mobile services: Antecedents and cross-service comparisons,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 330-346, 2005.

[20] L.M. Maruping, B. Hillol, V. Venkatesh, and S.A. Brown, “Going beyond intention Integrating behavioral expectation into the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology,” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 623-637, 2017.

[21] V. Venkatesh, and M.G. Morris, “Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior.” MIS Quarterly, pp. 115-139, 2000.

[22] M.A. Camilleri and A. Camilleri, “The Students’ Perceptions of Digital Game-Based Learning,” In M. Pivec and J. Grundler, 11th European Conference on Games Based Learning (October). Proceedings, University of Applied Sciences, Graz, Austria, pp 56- 62, 2017.

[23] T. Teo, and M. Zhou, “Explaining the intention to use technology among university students: a structural equation modeling approach,” Journal of Computing in Higher Education, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 124-142, 2014.

[24] T. Doleck, P. Bazelais, and D.J. Lemay, “Examining the antecedents of social networking sites use among CEGEP students,” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 2103-2123, 2017.

[25] B. Wu, and X. Chen, “Continuance intention to use MOOCs: Integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM) and task technology fit (TTF) model,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 67, pp. 221-232, 2017.

[26] C.T. Chang, J. Hajiyev, and C.R. Su, “Examining the students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning in Azerbaijan? The general extended technology acceptance model for elearning approach,” Computers & Education, vol. 111, pp. 128-143, 2017.

[27] I. Arpaci, K. Kilicer, and S. Bardakci, “Effects of security and privacy concerns on educational use of cloud services,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 45, pp. 93-98,
2015.

[28] A.F. Agudo-Peregrina, Á. Hernández-García, and F.J. Pascual-Miguel, “Behavioral intention, use behavior and the acceptance of electronic learning systems: Differences between higher education and lifelong learning,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 34,
pp. 301-314, 2014.

[29] F. Paraskeva, H. Bouta, and A. Papagianni. “Individual characteristics and computer self-efficacy in secondary education teachers to integrate technology in educational practice,” Computers & Education, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 1084-1091, 2008.

[30] D.R. Compeau, and C.A. Higgins, “Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test,” MIS Quarterly, pp. 189-211, 1995.

[31] S.A. Nikou, and A.A. Economides, “The impact of paper-based, computer-based and mobile-based self-assessment on students’ science motivation and achievement,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 55, pp. 1241-1248, 2016.

[32] L.A. Annetta, J. Minogue, S.Y. Holmes, and M.T. Cheng, “Investigating the impact of video games on high school students’ engagement and learning about genetics,” Computers & Education, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 74-85, 2009.

[33] E.W.T. Ngai, J. K. L. Poon, and Y.H.C. Chan, “Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM,” Computers & Education, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 250-267, 2007.

[34] T.Teo, and C. Beng Lee, “Explaining the intention to use technology among student teachers: An application of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB),” Campus-Wide Information Systems, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 60-67, 2010.

[35] T. Teo, and C. Beng Lee, C. Sing Chai, and S.L. Wong, “Assessing the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers in Singapore and Malaysia: A multigroup invariance analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM),” Computers & Education, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 1000-1009, 2009.

[36] J.Y.L. Thong, W. Hong, and K.Y. Tam, “Understanding user acceptance of digital libraries: what are the roles of interface characteristics, organizational context, and individual differences?” International journal of human-computer studies, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 215-242, 2002.

[37] M.A. Camilleri, and A.C. Camilleri, “Digital learning resources and ubiquitous technologies in education,” Technology, Knowledge and Learning, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 65- 82, 2017.

[38] D.Y. Lee, and M.R. Lehto, “User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model.” Computers & Education, vol. 61, pp. 193-208, 2013.

[39] T. Teo, and P. Van Schalk, “Understanding technology acceptance in pre-service teachers: A structural-equation modeling approach,” The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 47-66, 2009.

[40] C. Smarkola, “Technology acceptance predictors among student teachers and experienced classroom teachers,” Journal of Educational Computing Research, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 65-82, 2007.

[41] M.A. Camilleri, and A.C. Camilleri, “Measuring The Educators’ Behavioural Intention, Perceived Use And Ease Of Use Of Mobile Technologies,” In Wood, G. (Ed) Reconnecting management research with the disciplines: Shaping the research agenda for the social sciences (University of Warwick, September). British Academy of Management, UK, 2017.

[42] M. Turner, B. Kitchenham, P. Brereton, S. Charters, and D. Budgen, “Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 463-479, 2010.

[43] R.P. Bagozzi, and Y. Youjae, “On the evaluation of structural equation models,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 16, no. 1, pp.74-94, 1988.

[44] M.A. Camilleri, and A.C. Camilleri, “The Technology Acceptance of Mobile Applications in Education,” In Sánchez, I.A. and Isaias, P. (Eds) 13th International Conference on Mobile Learning (Budapest, 11th April). pp41-48. International Association for Development of the Information Society, 2017.

[45] A. Colbert, N. Yee, and G. George, “The digital workforce and the workplace of the future,” Academy of Management Journal, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 731-739, 2016.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under digital games, digital media, Education

The Customers’ Brand Identification with Luxury Hotels: A Social Identity Perspective

This is an excerpt from one of my latest papers.

How to Cite: Rather, R.A. & Camilleri, M.A. (2019). The Customers’ Brand Identification with Luxury Hotels: A Social Identity Perspective. In Harrison, T. & Brennan, M. (Eds.) 2019 AMS World Marketing Congress. University of Edinburgh, Scotland (July 2019). Academy of Marketing Science (Download Now).

 

Relevant theoretical underpinnings on the social identity theory (SIT) suggests that the consumers’ self-expressions are somewhat associated with their relationships with firms and brands (Rather & Hollebeek, 2019; Fujita, Harrigan & Soutar, 2018; Elbedweihy, Jayawardhena, Elsharnouby & Elsharnouby, 2016; So, King & Sparkes, 2014; So, King, Sparks & Wang, 2013; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003). For this reason, this paper relied on the SIT perspective to explore the consumer-brand relationships (Elbedweihy et al., 2016; Lam, Ahearne, Mullins, Hayati, & Schillewaert, 2013; Ahearne, Bhattacharya & Gruen 2005).

The individual consumers form part of a social group who regularly experience the delivery of services (Fujita et al., 2018; Huang, Cheng, & Chen, 2017; Elbedweihet al., 2016; So et al., 2013; Kuenzel & Halliday, 2008; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003). Hence, the service brands can be considered as the facilitators of the consumers’ social identity and expression as individuals can identify with brands if they perceive that they match their self-concept (Stokburger-Sauer, Ratneshwar, & Sen, 2012; Homburg, Wieseke & Hoyer, 2009). In a similar vein, the customer-brand identification (CBI) concept describes the relationships between the brands and their customers, as it explicates how the brands relate to the individuals’ self-concept (Martinez & Rodriguez del Bosque, 2013). Many brands are increasingly looking after their existing customers by satisfying their various needs, wants and desires (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001; Martinez & Rodriguez del Bosque, 2014). They do so to retain their existing customers. The loyal customers are usually willing to pay more, spend more and recommend more than new prospects (Martinez & Rodriguez del Bosque, 2014; Harris & Goode, 2004).

The subject of brand loyalty has been explored extensively in the marketing literature. Past studies have often focused on the antecedents of loyalty, including;  customer satisfaction (Popp & Woratschek, 2017), trust (Martinez & Rodriguez del Bosque, 2014; So et al., 2013), perceived service quality (So et al., 2013), commitment (Narteh, Agbemabiese, Kodua, & Braimah, 2013; Su, Swanson, Chinchanachokchai, Hsu, & Chen, 2016), customer engagement (Rather, Hollebeek & Islam, 2019; So et al., 2014), as well as perceived value (So et al., 2013), among other constructs. Notwithstanding, CBI has been investigated in different research contexts, and has often yielded contradictory results. For instance, Su et al. (2016) indicated that brand identification was not significant in predicting customer loyalty. While other studies suggested that the relationship between customer retention, word-of-mouth and loyalty were positive and significant (Kuenzel & Halliday, 2008); other research reported that there is a correlation between CBI and customer loyalty (Rather & Hollebeek, 2019; Martinez & Rodriguez del Bosque, 2013; 2014). However, the literature did not devote sufficient attention to discover the antecedents of CBI, albeit a few exceptions (Su et al., 2016; So et al., 2013; Keh & Xie, 2009).

 

Research Question

Previous theoretical underpinnings and empirical studies have contributed to advancing our knowledge on brand loyalty and customer-brand relationships (Ahearne et al., 2005; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Fujita et al., 2018; He, Li, & Harris, 2012; So et al., 2013). However, there is still a gap in the extent literature that explores CBI by using the social identity perspective (Ahearne, et al., 2005; Choo, Park, & Petrick, 2011; Elbedweihy et al., 2016; He et al., 2012; Martinez and Rodriguez del Bosque, 2014; Popp & Woratschek, 2017; So et al., 2013; Su et al., 2016). Hence, this paper addresses this lacuna in academic literature. The aim of this study is to provide further empirical evidence on the CBI construct (Keh & Xie, 2009; Su et al., 2016). To the best of our knowledge, few studies have combined the social identity theory with social exchange factors to explain the determinants of hotel brand loyalty. Many researchers maintain that by incorporating the social identity (Rindfleisch, Burroughs, & Wong, 2009; Homburg et al., 2009; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and the service dynamics (Harris & Goode, 2004; Martinez & Rodriguez del Bosque, 2014) they would better understand the psychological processes that are linked to brand loyalty. Prior empirical studies in the hospitality context did not incorporate certain aspects of brand loyalty, including the mediating effects of commitment, satisfaction and trust. Hence, this research differentiates itself from other contributions; by building on the foundations of previous research on the social identity perspective of customer-brand loyalty. However, it considers the direct and indirect effects of social exchange variables from the marketing science literature, to explore the causal path from CBI to brand loyalty. In sum, this study addresses the following research questions: (i) How is CBI related to customer satisfaction? (ii) How is CBI related to trust? (iii) Is CBI different from customer commitment? (iv) Are CBI, customer satisfaction and commitment influencing brand loyalty?

 

References (featuring all the references that appeared in the full paper)

Ahearne, M., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Gruen, T. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of customer–company identification: expanding the role of relationship marketing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 574-585.

Al-Wugayan, A., Pleshko, L., & Baqer, S. (2008). An investigation of the relationships among consumer satisfaction, loyalty, and market share in Kuwaiti loan services. Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 13(2), 95-106.

Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability: findings from Sweden.  Journal of Marketing, 5(8), 53-66.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39.

Bai, B., Law, R., & Wen, I. (2008). The impact of website quality on customer satisfaction and purchase intentions: Evidence from Chinese online visitors. International journal of hospitality management27(3), 391-402.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonnett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588-606.

Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer company identification: a framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76-88.

Bowden, J. L. H. (2009). The process of customer engagement: A conceptual framework. Journal of marketing theory and practice17(1), 63-74.

Bowden, J. L., Dagger, T, S., & Elliott, G. (2013). Engaging customers for loyalty in the restaurant industry: the role of satisfaction, trust, and delight. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 16(1), 52-75.

Camilleri, M. A. (2017). Understanding customer needs and wants. In Camilleri, M.A. (Ed.) Travel marketing, tourism economics and the airline product (pp. 29-50). Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature.

Camilleri, M.A. (2018). The Marketing Environment of Tourist Destinations. In Camilleri, M.A. (Ed.) The Branding of Tourist Destinations: Theoretical and Empirical Insights. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited.

Caruana, A. (2002). Service loyalty: The effects of service quality and the mediating role of customer satisfaction. European journal of marketing36(7/8), 811-828.

Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 81-93.

Choo, H., Park, S.Y., & Petrick, J. F. (2011). The influence of the resident’s identification with a tourism destination brand on their behavior. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 20(2), 198-216.

Elbedweihy, A., Jayawardhena, C., Elsharnouby, M. H., & Elsharnouby, T. H. (2016). Customer relationship building: The role of brand attractiveness and consumer-brand identification. Journal of Business Research, 69, 2901-2910

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.

Fujita, M., Harrigan, P., & Soutar, G. N. (2018). Capturing and co-creating student experiences in social media: a social identity theory perspective. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice26(1-2), 55-71.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Babin, B. J., & Black, W. C. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (Vol. 7). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Han, H., & Hyun, S. S. (2013). Image congruence and relationship quality in predicting switching intention conspicuousness of product use as a moderator variable. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 37(3), 303-329.

Harris, L. C., & Goode, M. M. H. (2004). The four levels of loyalty and the pivotal role of trust: a study of online service dynamics. Journal of Retailing, 80(2), 139-158.

He, H., & Li, Y. (2011). CSR and service brand: the mediating effect of brand identification and moderating effect of service quality. Journal of Business Ethics, 100, 673-688.

He, H., Li, Y., & Harris, L. (2012). Social identity perspective on brand loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 65, 648-657.

Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., & Gremler, D. D. (2002). Understanding relationship mmarketing outcomes: an integration of relational benefits and relationship quality. Journal of Service Research, 4(3), 230-247.

Homburg, C., Wieseke, J., & Hoyer, W. D. (2009). Social identity and the service-profit chain. Journal of Marketing, 73(2) 38-54.

Huang, C. C. (2017). The impacts of brand experiences on brand loyalty: mediators of brand love and trust. Management Decision55(5), 915-934.

Huang, M. H., Cheng, Z. H., & Chen, I. C. (2017). The importance of CSR in forming customer-company identification and long-term loyalty. Journal of Services Marketing31(1), 63-72.

Jani, D., & Han, H. (2011). Investigating the key factors affecting behavioral intentions: Evidence from a full-service restaurant setting. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23(7), 1000-1018.

Keh, H. T., & Xie, Y. (2009). Corporate reputation and customer behavioral intentions: The role of trust, identification and commitment. Industrial Marketing Management, 38, 732-742.

Kuenzel, S., & Halliday, S.V. (2008). Investigating antecedents and consequences of brand identification. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 17, 293-304.

Lam, S. K., Ahearne, M., Mullins, R., Hayati, B., & Schillewaert, N. (2013). Exploring the dynamics of antecedents to consumer–brand identification with a new brand. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(2) 234-252.

Liat, C. B., Mansori, S., Chuan, G. C., & Imrie, B. C. (2017). Hotel service recovery and service quality: influences of corporate image and generational differences in the relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty. Journal of Global Marketing, 30(1), 42-51.

Martinez, P., & Rodriguez Del Bosque Rodriguez, I. (2013). CSR and customer loyalty: The roles of trust, customer identification with the company and satisfaction. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 35, 89-99.

Martinez, P., & Rodriguez Del Bosque Rodriguez, I. (2014). Exploring the antecedents of hotel customer loyalty: A social identity perspective. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 24(1), 1-23.

Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationships between providers and users of marketing research: The dynamics of trust within and between organizations. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 314-328.

Morgan, R., & Hunt, S. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58, 20-38.

Narteh, B., Agbemabiese, G. C., Kodua, P., & Braimah, M. (2013). Relationship marketing and customer loyalty: Evidence from the Ghanaian luxury hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 22(4), 407-436.

Nam, J., Ekinci, Y., & Whyatt, G. (2011). Brand equity, brand loyalty and consumer satisfaction. Annals of tourism Research38(3), 1009-1030.

Oliver, R.L., (1997). Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. McGraw- Hill, New York.

Popp, B., & Woratschek, H. (2017). Consumer-brand identification revisited: an integrative framework of brand identification, customer satisfaction, and price image and their role for brand loyalty and word of mouth. Journal of Brand Management, 1-21.

Rather, R. A., & Hollebeek, L. D. (2019). Exploring and validating social identification and social exchange-based drivers of hospitality customer loyalty.

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/IJCHM-10-2017-0627

Rather, R. A., Hollebeek, L. D., & Islam, J. U. (2019). Tourism-based customer engagement: the construct, antecedents, and consequences. The Service Industries Journal. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02642069.2019.1570154?journalCode=fsij20

Rindfleisch, A., Burroughs, J., &Wong, N. (2009). The safety of objects: materialism, existential insecurity, and brand connection. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(1), 1-16.

So, K. K. F., King, C., Sparks, B., & Wang, Y. (2013). The influence of customer-brand identification on hotel brand evaluation and loyalty development. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34, 31-41.

So, K. K. F., King, C., & Sparks, B. (2014). Customer engagement with tourism brands: Scale development and validation. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 38(3), 304-329.

Song, H., Li, G., van der Veen, R., & Chen, J. L. (2011). Assessing mainland Chinese tourists satisfaction with Hong Kong using tourist satisfaction index. International Journal of Tourism Research, 13, 82-96.

Stokburger-Sauer, N., Ratneshwar, S, & Sen, S. (2012) Drivers of consumer-brand identification. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(4), 406-418.

Su, L., Swanson, S. R., Chinchanachokchai, S., Hsu, M. K., & Chen, X. (2016). Reputation and intentions: the role of satisfaction, identification, and commitment. Journal of Business Research69(9), 3261-3269.

Sung, Y., & Campbell, W. K. (2009). Brand commitment in consumer–brand relationships: An investment model approach. Journal of Brand Management17(2), 97-113.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In S. Worchel & L. W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

Tuskej, U., Golob, U., & Podnar, K. (2013). The role of consumer-brand identification in building brand relationships. Journal of Business Research, 66, 53-59.

Underwood, R., Bond, E., & Baer, R. (2001). Building service brands via social identity: lessons from the sports marketplace. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9, 1-13.

Leave a comment

Filed under branding, consumer brand identification, Marketing

The Users’ Perceptions of the Electronic Government’s (e-gov) Services

This is an excerpt from one of my latest conference papers entitled; “Exploring the Behavioral Intention to Use E-Government Services: Validating the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology”.

How to Cite: Camilleri, M.A. (2019). Exploring the Behavioral Intention to Use E-Government Services: Validating the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. In Kommers, P., Hui, W., Isaias, P., & Tomayess, I. (Eds) 9th International Conference on Internet Technologies & Society, Lingnan University, Hong Kong (February 2019), International Association for Development of the Information Society.


The information and communication technologies (ICTs) as well as other web-based technologies can enhance the effectiveness, economies and efficiencies of service delivery in the public sector. Therefore, many governments are increasingly using the digital and mobile media to deliver public services to online users (Zuiderwijk Janssen & Dwivedi. 2015). The electronic or mobile government services (e-gov) are facilitators and instruments that are intended to better serve all levels of the governments’ operations, including its departments, agencies and their employees as well as individual citizens, businesses and enterprises (Rana & Dwivedi, 2015). The governments may use information and communication technologies, including computers, websites and business process re-engineering (BPR) to interact with their customers (Isaías, Pífano & Miranda, 2012; Weerakkody, Janssen & Dwivedi, 2011). E-gov services involve the transformational processes within the public administration; that add value to the governments’ procedures and services through the introduction and continued appropriation of information and communication technologies, as a facilitator of these transformations. These government systems have improved over the years.  In the past, online users relied on one-way communications, including emails. Today, online users may engage in two-way communications, as they communicate and interact with the government via the Internet, through instant-messaging (IM), graphical user interfaces (GUI) or audio/video presentations.

Traditionally, the public services were centered around the operations of the governments’ departments. However, e-governance also involves a data exchange between the government and other stakeholders, including the businesses and the general public (Rana & Dwivedi, 2015). The advances in technology have led to significant improvements in the delivery of service quality to online users (Isaías et al., 2012). As e-government services become more sophisticated, the online users will be intrigued to interact with the government as e-services are usually more efficient and less costly than offline services that are delivered by civil servants. However, there may be individuals who for many reasons, may not have access to computers and the internet. Such individuals may not benefit of the governments’ services as other citizens. As a result, the digital divide among citizens can impact their socio-economic status (Ebbers, Jansen & van Deursen, 2016). Moreover, there may be individuals who may be wary of using e-government systems. They may not trust the e-gov sites with their personal information, as they may be concerned on privacy issues. Many individuals still perceive the governments’ online sites as risky and unsecure.

This contribution addresses a knowledge gap in academic literature as it examines the online users’ perceptions on e-gov systems. It relies on valid and reliable measures from the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Zuiderwijk et al., 2015; Wang & Shih, 2009; Venkatesh, Morris, Davis & Davis, 2003;2012) to explore the respondents ’attitudes toward performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influences, facilitating conditions as well as their intentions to use the governments’ electronic services. Moreover, it also investigates how the demographic variables, including age, gender and experiences have an effect on the UTAUT constructs.. In a nutshell, this research explains the causal path that leads to the online users’ acceptance and use of e-gov.

References

Ebbers, W. E., Jansen, M. G., & van Deursen, A. J. 2016. Impact of the digital divide on e-government: Expanding from channel choice to channel usage. Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 685-692.

Isaías, P., Pífano, S., & Miranda, P. (2012). Web 2.0: Harnessing democracy’s potential. In Public Service, Governance and Web 2.0 Technologies: Future Trends in Social Media (pp. 223-236). IGI Global.

Rana, N. P., & Dwivedi, Y.K. 2015. Citizen’s adoption of an e-government system: Validating extended social cognitive theory (SCT). Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 172-181.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., & Davis, F. D. 2003. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, pp. 425-478.

Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y., & Xu, X. 2012. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, pp. 157-178.

Wang, Y.S., & Shih, Y.W. (2009). Why do people use information kiosks? A validation of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 158-165.

Weerakkody, V., Janssen, M., & Dwivedi, Y. K. 2011. Transformational change and business process reengineering (BPR): Lessons from the British and Dutch public sector. Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 320-328.

Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M., & Dwivedi, Y.K. 2015. Acceptance and use predictors of open data technologies: Drawing upon the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 429-440.

Leave a comment

Filed under digital media, e government, internet technologies, internet technologies and society, online, Web

Data-Driven Marketing Technologies and Disruptive Innovations

The latest disruptive technologies are supporting  the  marketing mix elements as they can improve the businesses’ interactive engagement with prospective customers, and enhance their personalization of services. They  may also provide secure pricing options.

Many firms are evolving from their passive, rigid, and product-centric state to a more flexible, dynamic, and customer-centric environment. Technology is enabling data-driven companies to monitor and detect any changes in consumer sentiment. Savvy technology giants including Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft and Google are capturing (and analyzing) the online and mobile activity of prospective customers. Their analytics captures the consumers’ interactions with brands and companies through digital media. Big data is enabling them to target and re-target individu­als and online communities with instantaneous pricing and access options, across multiple channels (via web-site activity, mobile,video, social media, e-commerce, among others). 

Mobile tracking technologies are being utilized by big technology conglomerates as they gather information on the consumer behaviours, including their shopping habits, lifestyle preferences , et cetera. Businesses have learnt how to take advantage of on-demand, real-time information from sensors, radio frequency identification and other location tracking devices to better understand their marketing environments at a more granular level (Storey and Song, 2017). This way business could come up with personalised products and services, that are demanded by individual customers. From a business perspective, it is important to acquire this data, quickly, and in high velocities.

Many businesses are already benefiting of the programmatic advertising environment; where buyers and sellers of digital advertising connect online to exchange available inventory (Busch,2016; Stevens et al., 2016).  The challenge for tomorrow’s businesses is to recognize the value of smart technologies as effective tools that can help them analyse their marketing environment; that comprise their customers as well as their competitors.

The predictive-analytical tools can examine different scenarios as they can anticipate what will happen, when it will happen, and can explain why it happens. These technologies can monetise data by identifying revenue generating opportunities and cost savings.

Other innovations, including; blockchain’s distributed ledger technologies are improving data privacy. This technology involves the verification and the secure recording of transactions among an interconnected set of users. Blockchain tracks the ownership of assets before, during, and after any online transaction. Therefore, this technology could be used by different businesses to facilitate their transactions with marketplace stakeholders, including; suppliers, intermediaries, and consumers across borders. The block chain will probably be more convenient than other payment options, in terms of time and money. Therefore, blockchain’s ledger technology can possibly lead to better customer service levels and operational efficiencies for businesses.

The smart tourism technologies, including big data analytics are shifting how organisations collect, analyze and utilise and distribute data. A thorough literature review suggests that the crunching of big data analytics is generating meaningful insights and supporting tourism marketers in their decision making. Moreover,other technologies, including the programmatic advertising and block chain are helping them to improve their financial and strategic performance, whilst minimizing costs. Table 1 illustrates how smart tourism businesses are capturing, analysing and distributing data.

Table 1. Data-driven approaches for smart tourism

(Camilleri, 2018)

Emerging Trends and Future Research

Tomorrow’s tourism businesses will be serving customers from geographically-diverse regions. There will be more travellers from emerging markets and developing economies. The tourism service providers will have to cater to different demographics, including senior citizens and individuals with special needs; as the populations are getting older in many countries.

Therefore,  smart technologies can be used to anticipate the discerned consumers’ requirements. For instance, the use of programmatic advertising will probably increase the individuals’ intuitive shopping experiences and can tap into the individuals’ discretionary purchases.

It is very likely, that the third-party retailers will continue to form part of the distribution mix. However, many service providers will be using their direct channels to reach out to their targeted customers. 

The sales of products will continue to rely on mobile devices with increased consumer interactions through speech and voice recognition software. The service providers may possibly rely on artificial intelligence and other forms of cognitive learning capabilities, like machine learning and deep learning.

The businesses’ distributive systems could interface with virtual reality software to help online intermediaries to merchandise their products in captivating customer experiences. Many online prospects may use blockchain’s secure technology to purchase tourism products, in the foreseeable future.

This contribution calls for further empirical research that could explore smart tourism innovations for individuals and organisations, including; mobile social networking, mobile visualisation, personalization and behavioural modelling for mobile apps, programmatic advertising, blockchain, AI, and the internet of things, among other areas.

References

Busch, O. (2016), “The programmatic advertising principle”, In Programmatic Advertising (pp. 3-15). Springer, Cham, Switzerland.

Camilleri, M.A. (2018) Data-Driven Marketing and Disruptive Technologies. Working Paper 08/2018, Department of Corporate Communication, University of Malta. 

Stevens, A., Rau, A., and McIntyre, M. (2016), “Integrated campaign planning in a programmatic world”, In Programmatic Advertising (pp. 193-210), Springer, Cham, Switzerland. 

Storey, V. C., and Song, I. Y. (2017), “Big data technologies and Management: What conceptual modeling can do?”, Data and Knowledge Engineering, Vol. 108, pp. 50-67.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Analytics, Big Data, blockchain, Business, digital media, Marketing

Product-Service Systems for Sustainable Businesses

This is an excerpt from my latest paper: Camilleri, M. A. (2018). The circular economy’s closed loop and product service systems for sustainable development: A review and appraisal. Sustainable Development. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/sd.1909

(c) The Sustainable Business Edit

Many academic commentators claim that product-service systems (PSS) are moving society towards a resource‐efficient, circular economy (CE) (Tukker, 2015; Piscicelli et al., 2015; Yuan et al., 2006). PSSs shift the businesses’ focus from designing and selling only physical products, to selling a marketable set of products, services, supporting networks, and infrastructures, by including repair and maintenance, updates/upgrades, help desk, training and consultancy, and disposal‐services such as recycling and take‐back (Gaiardelli et al., 2014). Therefore, PSS consists of tangible products as well as intangible services that are combined so that they are jointly capable of satisfying the consumers’ demands (Hockerts & Weaver, 2002).

PSS providers are in a position to design need‐fulfilment systems with lower impacts to the environment, by either replacing an alternative product‐service mix or by influencing the customers’ activities to become more eco‐efficient. Tukker (2015) suggested that firms have an incentive to prolong the service life of their products and to make them as cost‐ and material‐efficient as possible. Moreover, PSSs would typically extend beyond purchase, affecting the use and disposal of resources. Hence, these systems could lead to the minimisation of material flows in the economy whilst maximising the businesses’ service output and their users’ satisfaction (Tukker & Tischner, 2006). There are three types of PSSs that prescribe different product service components and ownership packages:

(a) a product‐PSS that adds extra services but the ownership of the product(s) is transferred to the consumer(s);

(b) the results‐PSSs that would involve both parties agreeing to achieve target results, as they recast product(s) as utilised materials;

(c) in use‐PSSs, the provider(s) lease, share or pool their product(s); however, they retain the ownership of the product(s).

For instance, Koninklijke Philips N.V. (Royal Philips, commonly known as Philips), a diversified technology company utilises the use‐PSS approach, as it provides a lighting service to customers and is responsible for its technology risk. The Dutch company installs its lighting equipment (including street lighting), maintains it, and ensures that it runs for a very long time. Eventually, it reclaims back its equipment when it is the right time to recycle materials. This property rights are distributed amongst Philips and its clients, over the life time of the products. Philips has recognised an untapped opportunity to retain ownership of its products, as it has committed itself to dispose of the infrastructure and its constituent parts at their end of life. At the same time, customers (including the government) do not have to pay high upfront costs for their lighting equipment. Interestingly, Philips is also adopting a similar PSS within health care environments where it has established leasing relationships with clients for its medical infrastructure. Again, the company will eventually reclaim back its equipment and upgrades it when necessary. When the medical equipment is refurbished with the state‐of‐the art technology, the multinational firm will reuse it for another customer; it provides a warrantee cover and guarantees its products as new.

The idea of shared ownership is conspicuous with the results‐ and use‐PSSs. These systems have led to upstream effects (through sustainable designs) and increased throughput. As a result, they are sustainable in the long run, as there are less externalities, in terms of waste and emissions.

References

Camilleri, M. A.(2017). Corporate sustainability, social responsibility and 
environmental management: An introduction to theory and practice with 
case studies. Cham: Springer Nature.

Gaiardelli, P.,Resta, B., Martinez, V., Pinto, R., & Albores, P. (2014). A
classification model for product‐service offerings. Journal of cleaner 
production, 66,507–519.

Hockerts, K.,& Weaver, N. (2002). Are service systems worth our interest.
Assessing the eco‐efficiency of sustainable service systems. Working document, INSEADFontainebleau, France.

Piscicelli, L.,Cooper, T., & Fisher, T. (2015). The role of values in collaborative
consumption:Insights from a product service system for lending
and borrowing in the UK. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.032

Tukker, A. (2015). Product services for a resource‐efficient andcircular
economy—A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 76–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.049

Tukker, A., &Tischner, U. (2006). Product‐services as a research field: Past, present and future. Reflections from a decade of research. Journal of 
Cleaner Production, 14(17),1552–1556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.01.02

Yuan, Z., Bi, J.,& Moriguichi, Y. (2006). The circular economy: A new development strategy in China.Journal of Industrial Ecology, 10(1), 4–8.



Leave a comment

Filed under Circular Economy, Sustainability, sustainable development

The Circular Economy and the Sustainability Agenda

This is excerpt from my latest paper that was accepted by ‘Sustainable Development’ (Wiley).

How to Cite: Camilleri, M.A. (2018). The Circular Economy’s Closed Loop and Product Service Systems for Sustainable Development: A Review and Appraisal. Sustainable Development. Forthcoming.

The Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987) defined sustainable development as; “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (p. 43). Its underlying assumption is that the world’s physical resources are not finite, therefore, they have to be managed responsibly to sustain future generations. Subsequently, the United Nations (UN) Conference on Environment and Development has put forward Agenda 21 that dedicated a chapter that was focused on unsustainable patterns of production and consumption. This document recommended that the UN’s member states ought to intensify their efforts to reduce the use of scarce resources during production processes, whilst minimising the environmental impacts from generation of waste and pollution (Agenda 21, 1992).

In 2002, the UN Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development also made reference to unsustainable patterns of production and consumption. The UN’s member states were urged to manage their natural resources sustainably and with lower negative environmental impacts; by promoting the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems, whilst reducing waste (WSSD, 2002, p 13). Moreover, in another resolution, entitled; “The future we want”, the General Assembly at the UN Conference on Sustainable Development has reaffirmed its commitment to implementing green economy policies in the context of sustainable development. The Heads of State and Government or their representatives have agreed to continue promoting the integrated and sustainable management of eco-systems; whilst facilitating their conservation, regeneration and restoration of resources (UNCSD, 2012). Furthermore, during the UN’s General Assembly Resolution of 25 September 2015, entitled; “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” the world leaders have agreed to adopt the Sustainable Development Goals that replaced the previous millennium development goals that were established in the year 2000. Specifically, the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12 of the 2030 agenda, namely; “Sustainable Consumption and Production” explained that there is an opportunity for business and industry to reap economic gains through resource and energy efficiencies. It also raised awareness on the use of sustainable infrastructures and urged the UN member states to address air, water and soil pollution to minimise their environmental impact (UNDP, 2015). Moreover, the Paris Climate Agreement (COP 21) and Resolutions 1/5 and 2/7 on chemicals and waste, and 2/8 on sustainable production and consumption, as adopted by the 1st and 2nd sessions of the United Nations Environment Assembly (that was held in Nairobi, Kenya on the 27th June 2014 and the 27th May 2016), are also considered as important policy instruments for many stakeholders, as they have paved the way for the transition toward the circular economy strategy.

These intergovernmental policy recommendations on sustainable consumption and production have led to increased regulatory pressures on business and industry toward controlled operations management and environmentally-responsible practices. In 2014, the European Union (EU) Commission anticipated that, “new business models, eco-designs and industrial symbiosis can move the community toward zero-waste; reduce greenhouse emissions and environmental impacts” (EU, 2018). Eventually, in March 2017, the EU Commission and the European Economic and Social Committee organised a Circular Economy Stakeholder Conference, where it reported on the delivery and progress of some of its Action Plan. It also established a Finance Support Platform with the European Investment Bank (EIB) and issued important guidance documents to Member States on the conversion of waste to energy.

Other EU Communications on this subject, comprised: “Innovation for a sustainable future – The Eco-innovation Action Plan“; “Building the Single Market for Green Products: Facilitating better information on the environmental performance of products and organisations“; “Green Action Plan for SMEs: enabling SMEs to turn environmental challenges into business opportunities“; “Closing the loop –An EU action plan for the Circular Economy” and the report on its implementation, and “Investing in a smart, innovative and sustainable Industry – A renewed EU Industrial Policy Strategy“, among others (EU, 2017). Recently, the EU commission has adopted a set of measures, including; a “Strategy for Plastics in the Circular Economy” that specified that all plastics packaging will have to be recyclable by 2030; It released a communication on the interface between chemical, product and waste legislation, as it explains how they relate to each other. Moreover, the commission launched a Monitoring Framework that may be used to assess the progress of its member states towards the implementation of the circular economy action plan. This framework is composed of a set of ten key indicators, comprising; 1) EU self-sufficiency for raw materials; 2) Green public procurement; 3a-c) Waste generation; 4) Food waste, 5a-b) Overall recycling rates, 6a-f) Recycling rates for specific waste streams, 7a-b) Contribution of recycled materials to raw materials demand, 8) Trade in recyclable raw materials, 9a-c) Private investments, jobs and gross value added, and 10) Patents. Furthermore, (EU, 2018) published a report on the supply and demand of critical raw materials that are used in mining, landfills, electrical and electronic equipment, batteries, automotive sector, renewable energy, defence industry as well as for chemicals and fertilizers.


References

Agenda 21. 1992. United Nations Conference on Environment & Development. Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992. United Nations Sustainable Development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf [6 July 2018].

EU 2017. Council conclusions on eco-innovation: enabling the transition towards a circulareconomy. European Council of the European Union, Brussels, Belgium. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/12/18/council-conclusions-on-eco-innovation-transition-towards-a-circular-economy/#[5th July 2018].

EU 2018. Implementation of the Circular Economy Action Plan. European Commission.  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/index_en.htm[5th July 2018].

UNCSD 2012. The Future We Want – Outcome document. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 27 July 2012. United Nations  General Assembly. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/66/288&Lang=E [25 June 2018].

UNDP 2015. Transforming our World. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf [25 June 2018].

WSSD 2002. United Nations Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August- 4 September 2002.  http://www.un-documents.net/aconf199-20.pdf [29 June 2018].

Leave a comment

Filed under Circular Economy, Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, CSR, Shared Value, Sustainability, sustainable development

The Way Forward: Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility

An Excerpt from: Camilleri, M.A. (2017). Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility: Creating Value for Business, Society and the Environment. Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility 2(1) 59-74. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41180-017-0016-5

In the past, CSR may have been more associated with corporate philanthropy, stewardship principles, contributions-in-kind toward social and environmental causes, environmental protection, employees’ engagement in community works, volunteerism and pro-bono service among other responsible initiatives. Very often, such altruistic CSR activities may have not resulted in financial performance to the business per se. On the contrary, certain discretionary
expenses in corporate philanthropy could have usurped the businesses’ slack resources (including financial assets, labour and time) without adding much value (in terms of corporate reputation and goodwill) to the businesses. Nevertheless, this research reported that the contemporary discourses on corporate social responsibility are opening new opportunities for the businesses themselves. The academic discourse about CSR is moving away from ‘nice-to
do’ to ‘doing-well-by-doing-good’ mantra. Evidently, the value-based approaches that were discussed in this paper could be considered as guiding principles that will lead tomorrow’s businesses to long term sustainability (in social and economic terms). Debatably, the profit motive (the business case or corporate sustainability concepts) could be linked with the corporate responsibility agenda. This way, the multinational corporations could be better prepared to address their societal and environmental deficits across the globe, whilst adding value to their business.

This review paper has built on the previous theoretical underpinnings of the corporate social responsibility agenda including Stakeholder Management, Corporate Citizenship and Creating Shared Value as it presents the latest Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility perspective. This value-based model reconciles strategic CSR and environmental management with a stakeholder approach to bring long term corporate sustainability, in terms of economic performance for the business, as well as corporate responsibility’s social outcomes. Recently, some international conferences including Humboldt University’s gatherings in 2014 and 2016 have also raised awareness on this proposition. The corporate sustainability and responsibility concept is linked to improvements to the companies’ internal processes including environmental management, human resource management, operations management and marketing (i.e. Corporate Sustainability). At the same time, it raises awareness on the
businesses’ responsible behaviours (i.e. Corporate Responsibility) toward stakeholders including the government, suppliers, customers and the community, among others. The fundamental motivation behind this approach is the view that creating connections between stakeholders in the value chain will open-up unseen opportunities for the competitive advantage of responsible businesses, as illustrated in Figure 1.

cs model

Multinational organizations are under increased pressures from stakeholders (particularly customers and consumer associations) to revisit their numerous processes in their value chain activities. Each stage of the company’s production process, from the supply chain to the transformation of resources could add value to their businesses’ operational costs as they produce end-products. However, the businesses are always expected to be responsible in their internal processes toward their employees or toward their suppliers’ labour force. Therefore, this corporate sustainability and responsibility perspective demands that businesses create economic and societal value by re-aligning their corporate objectives with stakeholder management and environmental responsibility. In sum, corporate sustainability and responsibility may only happen when companies demonstrate their genuine willingness to add corporate responsible dimensions and stakeholder engagement to their value propositions. This occurs when businesses opt for responsible managerial practices that are integral to their overall corporate strategy. These strategic behaviours create opportunities for them to improve the well-being of stakeholders as they reduce negative externalities on the environment. The negative externalities can be eliminated by developing integrated approaches that are driven by ethical and sustainability principles. Very often, multinational businesses are in a position to mitigate risk and to avoid inconveniences to third parties. For instance, major accidents including BP’s Deep Horizon oil spill in 2010, or the collapse of Primark’s Rana Plaza factory in Bangladesh, back in 2013, could have been prevented if the big businesses were responsible beforehand.

In conclusion, the corporate sustainability and responsibility construct is about embedding sustainability and responsibility by seeking out and connecting with the stakeholders’ varied interests. As firms reap profits and grow, there is a possibility that they generate virtuous circlesof positive multiplier effects (Camilleri, 2017). Therefore, corporate sustainability and responsibility can be considered as strategic in its intents and purposes. Indeed, the businesses are capable of being socially and environmentally responsible ‘citizens’ as they are doing well, economically. This theoretical paper has contributed to academic knowledge as it explained the foundations for corporate sustainability and responsibility. Although this concept is still evolving, the debate among academic commentators is slowly but surely raising awareness on responsible managerial practices and on the skills and competences that are needed to deliver strategic results that create value for businesses, society and the environment.

Leave a comment

Filed under Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, CSR, Marketing, Shared Value, Stakeholder Engagement, Sustainability

Creating Synergistic Value for Business and Society

Synergistic value integrates insights from the stakeholder theory [1] the resource based view theory [2] and the shared value notion [3] [4].

The stakeholder theory [1] provides opportunities to align business practices with societal expectations and sustainable environmental needs. Businesses ought to reconcile disparate stakeholders’ wants and needs (e.g. employees, customers, investors, government, suppliers etc.). By forging alliances with internal and external stakeholders business can create synergistic value opportunities. This may lead to an improvement in mutual trust and understanding. As a result, there are also benefits for corporate reputation, brand image, customer loyalty and investor confidence. This societal engagement also responds to third party pressures, it lowers criticisms from the public and minimises regulatory problems by anticipating legal compliance.

The resource-based view theory [2] suggests that the organisations’ slack resources are a facilitator for quality and innovation. Therefore, discretionary expenditures in scarce resources for internal and external socially-responsible practices as well as investments for environmental sustainability will result in strategic CSR [3] outcomes including; effective human resources management, employee motivation, operational efficiencies and cost savings, greater productivity outcomes (which often translate in healthier financial results) [3]

The synergistic value notion suggests that there is scope for governments in their capacity as regulators to take a more proactive stance in promoting responsible behaviours. They can possibly raise awareness of social and sustainable practices through the dissemination of information; the provision of training programmes and continuous professional development for entrepreneurs [4]. They may assist businesses by fostering the right type of environment for responsible behaviours; through various incentives (e.g. grants, tax relief, sustainable reporting guidelines, frequent audits et cetera) [3].

This proposition implies that socially responsible and environmentally-sound behaviours will ultimately bring financial results – as organisational capabilities are positively linked to organisational performance. Synergistic value is based on the availability of slack resources, stakeholder engagement and regulatory intervention which transcend strategic CSR benefits for both business and society.

References

[1] Freeman, E.E. (1994). The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 409

[2] Orlitzky, M., Siegel, D. S. and Waldman, D. A. (2011). Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Sustainability. Business & Society, 50(1), 6-27.

[3] Camilleri, M. A. (2012). Creating shared value through strategic CSR in tourism.. University of Edinburgh. https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/6564 accessed 10th July 2014.

[4] Porter, M.E., Kramer, M.R. (2011). Creating Shared Value, Harvard Business Review, 17 pages. gen 01, 2011.

Leave a comment

Filed under Marketing

RESEARCH: The Small Business Owner-Managers’ Attitudes toward Digital Media

An Excerpt from my latest paper: Camilleri, M.A. (2018). The SMEs’ Technology Acceptance of Digital Media for Stakeholder Engagement. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development (Forthcoming).


small-businesses-social-media

This contribution sheds light on the SME owner-managers’ attitudes toward the pace of technological innovation, perceived use and ease of use of digital media; as they communicate and interact with interested stakeholders online. It also explored their stance on responsible entrepreneurship, specifically on commercial, ethical and social responsibilities, as well as on their willingness to support other responsible stakeholders.

This empirical study and its theoretical underpinnings contribute to an improved understanding as to why today’s SMEs are expected to communicate with stakeholders through digital media. At the same time, it raises awareness of responsible entrepreneurial initiatives that could be promoted through digital media, including; corporate websites, social media and blogs, among others.

Generally, the results reported that there were high mean scores and low standard deviations, particularly when the participants were expected to indicate their attitudes on their commercial and ethical responsibilities. The nature of the SMEs’ CSR activities is usually integrated into their company culture, often implicitly in habits and routines that are inspired by highly motivated owner-managers; rather than explicitly in job descriptions or formalized procedures (Jenkins, 2006). The factor analysis indicated that the SME owner-managers were increasingly perceiving the usefulness of digital media to engage with marketplace stakeholders, including; consumers, suppliers and other businesses, as they promoted their responsible entrepreneurship behaviors.

The communications on their businesses’ social responsibility and environmentally-sound practices also served them well to engage with other interested groups; including; human resources, shareholders and investors, among others. This finding mirrors Baumann Pauly et al.’s (2013) argumentation as these authors remarked that each business decision on economic, social, and environmental aspects must take into account all stakeholders. Notwithstanding, the businesses and their marketers need to possess relevant knowledge on their stakeholders, as this will impact on the effectiveness of their CSR communication (Morsing and Schultz, 2006; Vorvoreanu, 2009).

The value of their communications lies in their ability to open-up lines of dialogue through stories and ideas that reflect their stakeholders’ interests (Fieseler and Fleck, 2013; Moreno and Capriotti, 2009). For these reasons, companies cannot afford to overstate or misrepresent their CSR communications. Their online communication with stakeholders could foster positive behaviors or compel remedial actions, and will pay off in terms of corporate reputation, customer loyalty and market standing (Tantalo and Priem, 2016; Du et al, 2010).

This study suggests that the SME owner-managers were recognizing that they had to keep up with the pace of technological innovation. Yet there were a few participants, particularly the older ones, who were still apprehensive toward the use of digital media. Eventually, these respondents should realize that it is in their interest to forge relationships with key stakeholders (Lamberton and Stephen, 2016; Taiminen and Karjaluoto, 2015; Rauniar et al., 2014; Uhlaner et al., 2004). This research posits that the owner-managers or their members of staff should possess relevant digital skills and competences to communicate online with interested parties.

Likewise, Baumann Pauly et al., (2013) also recommended that the managers must be trained, and that their CSR activities must be evaluated. These findings are in line with other contributions (Spence and Perrini, 2011; Perrini et al., 2007) that have theoretically or anecdotally challenged the business case perspective for societal engagement (Penwar et al., 2017; Baden and Harwood 2013; Brammer et al. 2012).

The regression analysis has identified and analyzed the determinants which explain the rationale behind the SME owner-managers’ utilization of digital media for stakeholder engagement and for the promotion of responsible entrepreneurship. It reported that the respondents’ technology acceptance depended on their perceived “use” and “ease of use” of digital media; and on their willingness to communicate online on their commercial, ethical and social responsibilities.

The results from the regression analysis reported positive and significant relationships between the SMEs’ online stakeholder engagement and the pace of technological innovation; and between the SMEs’ online engagement and the owner-managers’ perceived usefulness of digital media. This study indicated that the pace of technological innovation, the owner-managers’ perceived ease of use of the digital media, as well as their commercial responsibility were significant antecedents for their businesses’ online communication of their responsible behaviors. Arguably, the use of technology is facilitated when individuals will perceive its usefulness and its ease of use (Davis, 1989).

In fact, the findings from this research have specified that the owner-managers’ intention was to use digital media to communicate about their responsible entrepreneurship. They also indicated their desire to use this innovation to engage with stakeholders on other topics, including commercial and ethical issues. This is in stark contrast with Penwar et al.’s (2017) findings, as the authors contended that the SME owner-managers’ perceptions on social engagement did not hold the same virility when compared to the context of their larger counterparts. These authors argued that the tangible benefits of CSR engagement had no effect on SMEs. In a similar vein, Baumann Pauly et al.’s (2013) study reported that the larger businesses were more effective than SMEs in their CSR communications.

However, the findings from this study’s second, third and fourth regression
equations indicated that the small and micro businesses were using digital media to improve their stakeholder engagement and to communicate about their responsible entrepreneurship issues.

Implications and Conclusions

SME managers and executives are in a position to enhance the effectiveness of their businesses’ communication efforts. This study has identified and analyzed the SME owner-managers’ attitudes toward the utilization of digital media for the communication of commercial, ethical and social responsibility issues.

Previous academic research has paid limited attention to the technology acceptance of digital media among small businesses, albeit a few exceptions (Taiminen and Karjaluoto, 2015; Baumann Pauly, Wickert, Spence and Scherer, 2013; Durkin et al., 2013; Taylor and Murphy, 2004). In this case, the research findings indicated that digital technologies and applications were perceived as useful by the SME owner-managers. This implies that the utilization of digital media can be viewed as a critical success factor that may lead to an improved engagement with stakeholders.

Several SMEs are already communicating about their responsible entrepreneurship through conventional and interactive media, including; social media, review sites, blogs, et cetera. These savvy businesses are leveraging their communications as they utilize digital media outlets (e.g., The Guardian Sustainability Blog, CSRwire, Triple Pundit and The CSR Blog in Forbes among others) to improve their reach, frequency and impact of their message.

In addition, there are instances where consumers themselves, out of their own volition are becoming ambassadors of trustworthy businesses on digital media (Du et al., 2010). Whilst other stakeholders may perceive these businesses’ posturing behaviors and greenwashing (Camilleri, 2017; Vorvoreanu, 2009).

A thorough literature review suggested that the positive word-of-mouth publicity through digital media may lead to strategic and financial benefits (Camilleri, 2017; Taiminen and Karjaluoto, 2015; Durkin et al., 2013). Therefore, businesses, including SMEs, are increasingly joining conversations in social media networks and online review sites. These sites are being used by millions of users every day. Indeed, there is potential for SMEs to engage with their prospects and web visitors in real-time.

Leave a comment

Filed under Business, Corporate Social Responsibility, digital media, Marketing, Small Business, SMEs, Stakeholder Engagement

The Use of Smart Tourism Technologies

An excerpt from my latest Working Paper, entitled: The Use of Big Data, Programmatic Advertising and Blockchain Technologies in Tourism

The latest disruptive technologies are supporting the tourism businesses’ marketing mix elements as they improve the interactive engagement with individual prospects, enhance the personalisation of services, whilst providing secure pricing options. Many tourism firms are evolving from their passive, rigid, and product-centric state to a more flexible, dynamic, and customer-centric environment, as they monitor and detect any changes in consumer sentiment. Data-driven companies are increasingly capturing and analysing the online and mobile activity of prospective customers, as they delve into ecommerce and review sites, personal blogs and social media (Sigala, 2017; Kumar et al., 2017). Their analytics captures the consumers’ interactions with brands and companies through digital media. Therefore, big data is enabling them to target and re-target individuals and online communities with instantaneous pricing and access options, across multiple channels (via web-site activity, mobile, video, social media, ecommerce, among others). Large technology giants use mobile tracking technologies, to gather information on the consumer behaviours, including their shopping habits, lifestyle preferences , et cetera (Aksu et al., 2018).

Tech-savvy firms have learnt how to take advantage of on-demand, real-time information from sensors, radio frequency identification and other location tracking devices to better understand their marketing environments at a more granular level (Storey & Song, 2017). This way business could come up with personalised products and services, that are demanded by individual customers (Li et al., 2017). From a business perspective, it is important to acquire this data, quickly, and in high velocities. This paper reported that many businesses are already benefiting of the programmatic advertising environment; where buyers and sellers of digital advertising connect online to exchange available inventory (Busch, 2016; Stevens et al., 2016).

The challenge for tourism businesses is to recognise the value of smart technologies as effective tools that can analyse their marketing environment, including the customers as well as their competitors. The predictive-analytical tools can examine different scenarios; and the prescriptive analytics anticipate what will happen, when it will happen, and explains why it happens. These technologies can monetise data by identifying revenue generating opportunities and cost savings.

Other innovations, including blockchain’s distributed ledger technologies are improving data privacy, as it involves the verification and the secure recording of transactions among an interconnected set of users. Blockchain tracks the ownership of assets before, during, and after any online transaction. Therefore, this technology could be used by tourism businesses to facilitate their transactions with marketplace stakeholders, including suppliers, intermediaries, and consumers across borders. The block chain will probably be more convenient than other payment options, in terms of time and money. Therefore, blockchain’s ledger technology can possibly lead to better customer service levels and operational efficiencies for the tourism businesses.

The smart tourism technologies, including big data analytics are shifting how organisations collect, analyse and utilise and distribute data. A thorough literature review suggests that the crunching of big data analytics is generating meaningful insights and supporting tourism marketers in their decision making. Moreover, other technologies, including the programmatic advertising and blockchain’s distributed ledger system is helping them to improve their financial and strategic performance. In conclusion, this contribution calls for further research on data-driven tourism.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Big Data, blockchain, Business, digital media, Marketing, tourism